Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Gas Undertakings (Regulations) Bill [Lords]

Ordered, That Standing Orders 92, 231, 232, and 258 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly:

Ordered, That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Hamilton Burgh Order Confirmation Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EAST (SITUATION).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a further statement on the Anglo-Japanese negotiations in Tokyo and the situation in the Far East generally?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement concerning the negotiations now in progress in Tokyo between His Majesty's Ambassador and the Japanese Government?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The position in the Tientsin negotiations remains as stated by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in last Monday's Debate. His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has been instructed to enter a further vigorous protest against the continuation

of anti-British agitation in North China.

Mr. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government are maintaining the closest possible contact with both the United States and the French Governments in view of these developments in Japan?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I ask if the Prime Minister will deny the statement widely made that His Majesty's Government have decided to hand over to the Japanese the four Chinese alleged to have murdered a Japanese agent at Tientsin?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. No decision has been taken.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that anything done which appears to let down China will make the anti-British agitation in China a reality?

The Prime Minister: We are bearing that in mind.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what action is being taken in regard to the stripping of British women yesterday by the Japanese?

The Prime Minister: We have not had any official confirmation of the incident up to the present.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether the question of the present policy of His Majesty's Government in supporting the Chinese currency has come under discussion in the conversations between His Majesty's Ambassador and the Japanese Foreign Minister?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The conversations at present proceeding in Tokyo are confined to local issues at Tientsin.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question a little more precisely? In the course of these conversations have there been discussions about Chinese currency, as stated in my question?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge that the Government


will not consent to de-legalise the Chinese currency?

The Prime Minister: I made a full statement on that question the other day.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very widespread reports that we are considering handing over the silver reserves to the Japanese, that the Japanese have demanded that that should be done, and that we intend to de-legalise the Chinese dollar in Tientsin? Can he say whether proposals have actually been made, and, if so, whether they have been refused?

The Prime Minister: This is a time when rumours go about in all directions and on all subjects. It must not be assumed that they are all correct. The statement that was made in the Debate the other day on the situation in China was a full account of the present position of the British Government, and I have nothing to add to that.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Prime Minister what reply has been received to the representations made to the Japanese Government by Sir Robert Craigie, on 6th June, on the subject of the restrictions placed by the Japanese naval and military authorities on British trade in the Yangtze delta?

Mr. Butler: A reply is awaited and His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo will continue to press the matter.

Sir A. Knox: Surely eight weeks ought to be sufficient time to get a reply, even from the Japanese Government?

Mr. Butler: It ought to be. That is why His Majesty's Ambassador has been asked to continue to press the matter, in view of its great urgency.

Mr. Mander: How long would it take the United States Government to get a reply?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND (EXPORT CREDITS).

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Prime Minister whether he will assure the House that he will prevent any part of the forthcoming loan to Poland being used for the production of synthetic rubber, which would be directly pre-

judicial to the British rubber industry in Malaya?

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether he has taken steps to safeguard the interests of British Malaya by insisting that none of the money which is shortly to be lent by British taxpayers to support Polish industry shall be allotted to the production of synthetic rubber?

Mr. Butler: There is no proposal for the employment of the export credits, which are being given to Poland, on synthetic rubber.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

ANTI-AGGRESSION.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of arranging that the British delegates to the Assembly of the League of Nations in September shall move a resolution reporting the recent arrangements completed for mutual action against aggression, and proposing that this should, as far as practicable, be brought within the framework of the Covenant of the League?

Mr. Butler: On 23rd May my Noble Friend informed the Council of the League that His Majesty's Government would propose to take an appropriate opportunity for communicating to the League the result of the negotiations on which they were engaged, and which were in strict conformity with the spirit of the Covenant. This is, of course, still their intention. But I do not think it would be desirable for the United Kingdom delegation to move a resolution of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement referred to by the Foreign Secretary is likely to be made? Will it be to the Council or to the Assembly?

Mr. Butler: Probably during the meeting of the Assembly in the 6th Committee.

PALESTINE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what communications have recently been made by the British Government to States Members of the Council of the League of Nations with reference to the Government's White Paper policy for Palestine?

Mr. Butler: None, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Is the Minister really saying that no attempt has so far been made to influence the other members of the Council of the League on this subject and no conversation of any kind has taken place on the question?

Mr. Butler: No communication has been made to the States members.

ANGLO-FRENCH-RUSSIAN CONVERSATIONS.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether any further proposal is being considered on the political side of the Moscow negotiations?

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on 31st July.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether the date has been fixed for the despatch of the naval, military and air mission for Moscow?

The Prime Minister: We are at present in communication on this subject with the French Government whose convenience must, of course, be consulted. It is hoped that the delegations may be able to leave for Moscow next Saturday or Sunday.

BALTIC STATES.

Mr. Duncan: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the speech, on 30th July, by the Swedish Foreign Minister in which he said that Swedish interests would be seriously affected if agreements were arrived at by great Powers which conflicted with the avowed principle of the northern countries not to let themselves be objects of combinations in power politics; and will he bear this Swedish attitude in mind when considering the conclusion of an Anglo- Soviet pact in addition to the views already expressed by representatives of Finland and other Baltic States?

Mr. Butler: I have seen a Press report of the speech. As the House has already been informed, His Majesty's Government are taking into account the views and interests of other States. I may add that there is no question of imposing a guarantee of these States or of making

them the objects of combinations in power politics. But as has become apparent in the course of the present negotiations, the violation of the independence or neutrality of any one of these States would be a matter of vital interest to the three Governments concerned.

Mr. Duncan: Is it not clear from that answer that it is not a problem only of Finland, as suggested by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), but nearly all the Scandinavian countries?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. It is a problem of the Baltic States.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

LOW FLYING.

Mr. Lee: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has considered the protest on behalf of the inhabitants of Frecheville, Sheffield, upon the low flying of a fast fighter aeroplane, probably a Spitfire, on the morning of Friday, 14th July, between the hours of 10 and 11, which skimmed over the tops of the houses in this populous area; that this is not the only instance of such low and dangerous flying; and what action does he proposed to take in the matter?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have received a protest in regard to this matter and would like to express my regret for any inconvenience caused. Air exercises, arranged in conjunction with local authorities and anti-aircraft commanders, took place in certain districts on the 13th and 14th July and there was low cloud and poor visibility in the neighbourhood of Sheffield. It has not been possible to identify the aircraft concerned from the particulars furnished, but it is probable that the pilot was forced by the weather conditions to fly low. Every effort is made to avoid unnecessary risk or annoyance.

Mr. Crossley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very large number of low flying aeroplanes over London to-day?

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind himself of a similar question that I put to him about a month ago regarding the same district?

AUXILIARY SQUADRONS, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many Auxiliary Air Force flying squadrons are in existence in Yorkshire; and what is the qualification for would-be recruits?

Sir K. Wood: Three of these squadrons are stationed in Yorkshire. The qualifications for recruits vary according to the category in which they desire to enlist. Full details are given in Air Ministry Pamphlet 33, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

Mr. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what is the financial qualification to be a member of this particular Air Squadron?

Sir K. Wood: I could not do so without notice.

Mr. Williams: Is it not the case that this is rather an exclusive body, and will he state what is the actual cost of buildings and accommodation for the Auxiliary Air Force as compared with the quarters provided for the Royal Air Force Reserve?

Sir K. Wood: If the hon. Member will put down a question I will answer it, but I do not think there is any departure in this squadron from the usual rates of pay.

BUILDING WORK, LIVERPOOL (TENDERS).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he proposes to provide any hutment camps or other buildings for the use of the Royal Air Force in the Liverpool district; and, if so, will he advertise locally for tenders for construction or in some other way give local firms the opportunity of tendering for this work?

Sir K. Wood: Certain additional building work will shortly be commenced at Speke aerodrome and tenders have been invited from 13 selected firms of whom three are Liverpool firms and one from Bolton.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Secretary of State for Air how his Department secures tenders for building constructional work in Liverpool and district, stating whether by private invitation to tender, by public advertisement, or by what other method?

Sir K. Wood: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to a question on 18th

April last, the normal practice in my Department is to issue invitations to tender to a number of firms selected from the Air Ministry list of approved firms. Suitable local firms are considered when the list of invitations to tender is being drawn up. Exceptions to the normal arrangements are necessary from time to time when very urgent defence works are required to be executed.

Mr. Kirby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many small contracting firms in Liverpool and district who are short of work and cannot get on the approved list?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps the hon. Member will send me particulars of the matter.

LEUCHARS AERODROME (IRISH LABOURERS).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that East Fife labourers, whose names had been submitted by the local Employment Exchanges for work on the extension of Leuchars aerodrome, have applied to but have been turned down by the contractors responsible for the work and labourers specially sent for from Eire engaged in their place; and whether, in view of the resentment of local workmen at this action and the danger of importing Irish Republican Army wreckers into a vital part of the national defence, he will give immediate instructions that local men shall have first claim upon all available jobs and that not until the claims of unemployed Scottish workmen have been fully considered shall any Southern Irishmen be retained upon or engaged in future for this or any similar undertakings initiated by the Air Ministry?

Sir K. Wood: Two contractors are at present carrying out work at Leuchars on behalf of my Department. In the one case out of a total of 130 men employed 39 are Irishmen, but I understand that all men sent by the local Employment Exchange were accepted. In regard to the other firm it has not been possible to complete inquiries, but I understand that out of a total of 400 employed only 20 are Irishmen. As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) on 8th March last, Air Ministry contractors are required to notify the appropriate Employment Exchange of the additional labour required to carry out their contracts.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that information has reached me to-day that a further 50 Irish labourers had been engaged during the week and that further local men have been discharged without any reason; that preference is always given to Irish labourers for short piece rates, and that the common opinion is that local labour will eventually be supplanted by Irish labour? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tolerate that position?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, but I cannot accept the last statement of the hon. Member. As regards his other statement, if he will let me have particulars I will certainly investigate them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

EMPIRE AIR MAIL SERVICES (CYPRUS).

Captain A. Graham: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the present total lack of direct Imperial communications by sea, air or cable, and in view of the numerous local landing sites available for both aeroplanes and seaplanes, he will arrange for some air service, or at least one of the nine weekly Imperial Airways services to Egypt, to call at Cyprus?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I regret that so far as the Empire air mail services are concerned, it would not be operationally practicable to arrange a call at Cyprus under the present scheme. Cyprus could best be served by a feeder service from Egypt or Palestine. This will be borne in mind in connection with projected future developments in this area.

TRANS-OCEAN SERVICES (CATAPULTING).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Air particulars of what decision has been arrived at relative to the introduction of suitable catapulting arrangements for the development of British trans-ocean air services?

Captain Balfour: It is not intended to use catapulting for civil trans-ocean air services, but catapult experimental work is proceeding as part of the research and development programme of my Department.

Mr. Day: As a similar answer was given over a year ago may I ask how long it takes for a decision to be arrived at?

Captain Balfour: Experimental work is going on all the time, and he would be a very foolish person who would say that we shall ever reach finality in research.

Mr. Day: Is it not a fact that many Continental air services have already established this small type of catapult in their aerodromes?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir. The Germans are using a catapult for a much smaller type of aeroplane than we propose to use, for their South Atlantic Service. The arrangement depends on circumstances.

AEROPLANES (BALLOON BARRAGE).

Mr. Eckersley: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the incident on Saturday, 29th July, when a British Airways' aeroplane from Stockholm to Heston, with 12 passengers on board, narrowly missed a barrage balloon; and whether he will take steps to ensure that balloons are flown at such a height below the cloud ceiling as to render such episodes less likely in the future?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. The attention of my right hon. Friend has been called to this incident. I would explain however that a Notice to Airmen was issued on the subject of the balloon barrage exercises which are now taking place before their commencement and this should have precluded the possibility of an incident such as that referred to. A further notice was issued on 31st July calling attention to the earlier notice.

Mr. Eckersley: While thanking the hon. and gallant Member for his reply, may I ask whether it is a fact that balloons are allowed to fly in cloud?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir. One of the conditions under which balloons are allowed to fly is that neither the balloon nor the cable shall enter cloud or conditions of bad visibility. I have made inquiries of the Balloon Command, that, as far as I can find, no balloon was flown contrary to the order.

Mr. Montague: Can the Minister say what height the barrage balloons fly in peace time, and if they would be sent up much higher in time of emergency?

Captain Balfour: The second part of the hon. Member's question does not


arise, but, as to the first part, I can tell him that they are flown not above 2,000 feet by day and not above 1,500 feet by night.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ADVERTISEMENT HOARDINGS, HIGHWAYS.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the increasing defacement of the public highways by advertisement hoardings, illuminated and otherwise; and whether he is now taking any steps to deal with this nuisance?

The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): The question of revising the Advertisements Regulation Acts is at present being considered by a committee appointed jointly by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Home Affairs and the Secretary of State for Scotland. As regards the control of illuminated advertisements, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given to him on 1st March.

Sir. I. Albery: Are the present powers possessed by county councils adequate to deal with this matter, and, if so, will he draw the attention of those county councils who are not using them to these powers?

Captain Wallace: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question on the Paper. I should not like to answer without notice.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is it not the case that the committee has practically come to an agreement as to legislation?

Captain Wallace: I understand that the committee hope to report back to the conference shortly.

Mr. H. Strauss: Does not the Minister think that these advertisements put up at cross roads for the express purpose of attracting the attention of drivers on the roads are a cause of danger as well as interfering with the amenities, and is he not aware that the committee sitting at the Home Office have not considered the question of danger at all?

Captain Wallace: There is a later question on the Order Paper bearing on the point, and perhaps the hon. Member will await my answer.

Sir I. Albery: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received the report promised by his predecessor concerning illuminated signs and advertisements on the London-Maidstone road?

Captain Wallace: Yes, Sir. The Ministry's Divisional Road Engineer has now investigated the conditions referred to by my hon. Friend and his report shows that in the built-up areas of the London-Maidstone trunk road the signs are of the type normally found in shopping localities. On the other parts of the road the illuminated advertisements consist principally of flood-lit hoardings. These are on property outside the limits of the highway and the lighting is, I understand, in every case directed on to the hoardings and does not shine into the eyes of road users. There is no record of any accident on the road being attributed to the effect of an illuminated advertisement.

Mr. Hannah: Is not a tax on advertisements a very desirable thing?

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL (BRIDGES).

25. Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received on the need for new bridges over the Manchester Ship Canal; is it intended to take any action; and what are the prospects of a bridge at Eccles or Weaste, between Irlam and Barton, and a footbridge for the growing needs of Flixton and Irlam people?

Captain Wallace: Apart from a recent request for a foot-bridge at Irlam, the only representations I have received have been made through the hon. Member himself. In regard to road bridges, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 10th May. I am not in a position to make grants towards the construction of bridges for pedestrians only; but I understand that the Irlam and Urmston authorities have under consideration the possibility of providing a foot-bridge across the Canal and that, if a practical scheme can be devised, they will be prepared to proceed with it as soon as financial conditions permit.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that this is one of the most important industrial areas in the country, that the traffic is increasing, and will he not stimulate the local authority to act in these matters?

Mr. Crossley: Is the Minister aware that this is in my constituency, and that I made representations on the subject of the footpath to his Department about a fortnight ago?

Captain Wallace: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

LEVEL CROSSINGS.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Transport what action is to be taken to carry out the conclusions of the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways contained in the Report upon Accidents on the Rail ways, Cmd. 6054, in particular with regard to level-crossings and the accidents to permanent-way men, fitters, and wiremen?

Captain Wallace: A number of schemes have been completed for dealing with public road crossings by the construction of bridges. The case of occupation crossings is more difficult, and the railway companies have submitted a comprehensive report as a result of their investigation of over 22,000 such crossings. Until I have had an opportunity of considering the report of the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways on the recent accident at Hilgay crossing I am unable to make any statement as to what action I can usefully take. The question of accidents to permanent-way men, fitters and wiremen was recently discussed with a deputation from the National Union of Railwaymen and I have drawn the special attention of the railway companies to the conclusions of the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister also bear in mind that this question covers scores of constituencies?

ROAD SCHEMES (SITE VALUE).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he pro poses to take to secure for the community the increased site values of neighbouring land resulting from the expenditure of £106,000,000 of public money on approved road schemes during the next five years?

Captain Wallace: As regards land purchased by highway authorities for road improvements, the position is that in fixing the price of the land account is taken of any enhanced value of other land which will accrue to the vendors by reason of the road works. The question of the taxation of any profits which may accrue to other owners of land as a result of road improvements is not a matter for the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that in a recent case in which the Middlesex County Council was concerned, it was admitted that the value of land belonging to neighbouring landowners increased to an extent of £14,000,000? Does he not think that the community should share in this increased value

Captain Wallace: Whatever I may think about it, it is a matter for another Department.

Sir Herbert Williams: Has the Minister made any calculation as to the extent to which these gentleman get soaked when they die?

Captain Sir William Brass: May I ask whether the £106,000,000 mentioned in the question refers to new roads or to the widening of other roads?

Captain Wallace: I cannot take responsibility for the figures in the question. I can only deal with my own answer.

MESSRS. MACBRAYNES (TRADE UNION RECOGNITION).

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the result of the representations made through his predecessor regarding the position of the clerical staff of Messrs. MacBraynes' subsidised services in relation to trade unionism and on their overtime pay position?

Captain Wallace: The meeting at the Ministry of Labour to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson) on 10th May has taken place. At this meeting there was a full exchange of views between the managing director of the company and representatives of the Railway Clerks' Association; and the meeting was adjourned in order that the position might be further examined in the light of the discussion. In these circumstances I


think that it is necessary to await the result of the further meeting which, I understand, will take place in due course.

Mr. MacMillan: While appreciating the position in regard to these discussions will the Minister himself make it clear to this subsidised company that the people who pay the subsidy expect the best conditions of working?

Captain Wallace: I think that the less I say at the moment the better.

ADVISORY COUNCIL (REPORT).

Mr. Poole: asked the Minister of Transport when legislation may be expected dealing with the recent report of the Transport Advisory Council

Captain Wallace: I cannot add anything to the statement which I made on 24th May, 1939.

Mr. Poole: In view of the fact that the various interests concerned are already taking action which, in effect, is anticipating legislation on this matter, will not the Minister bring before the House the necessary legislation in order that we may prevent a serious departure which is involved from the present practice?

Captain Wallace: As far as I am aware the negotiations taking place between the different interests are all to the good, and in any case I cannot go beyond the statement I have made, which is that the Government will bring forward this legislation as soon as they can.

Mr. Poole: Are we to take it from the Minister's remark that these negotiations are all to the good, that he accepts in its entirety the report of the Transport Advisory Council?

Captain Wallace: The hon. Member must not understand that. I said that the Government accepted the Report in principle.

Sir H. Williams: Should not this matter be immersed in a pool of silence?

HALF-FARE RAILWAY TICKETS, CHILDREN.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the forth coming raising of the school age to 15 years, he will consult with the railway companies with a view to making half- fare rates for children available up to the age of 15 years?

Captain Wallace: The railway companies inform me that they have this question under consideration.

RAILWAY CLOAKROOMS (DISPLAYED PACKAGES).

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to protect the public, he will introduce legislation to confer on the railway companies power to secure that the contents of all properties left at cloakrooms shall be displayed by the depositors before leaving them?

Captain Wallace: Legislation is not required to confer on the railway companies powers to secure that the contents of properties left at cloakrooms should be displayed by the depositors before leaving them, as the companies as warehousemen are entitled to know the nature of the goods they are requested to warehouse before they are accepted. In view of recent events the companies have considered it desirable in many instances to require prospective depositors to open packages and display the contents before packages are accepted for warehousing, and a notice of this requirement is exhibited at the cloakrooms.

Mr. Samuel: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say why they did not use their powers earlier, and so prevent loss of life?

Captain Wallace: If it were a question of taking general powers, those powers would apply to all warehouses, and not only those of railway companies; but it would then be a matter for the Home Office rather than for my Department. I think the fact is that the railways have powers in this matter which should be adequate.

LOW PLATFORM, DRONFIELD RAILWAY STATION.

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will call the attention of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company to the inconvenience and danger to passengers, especially elderly and infirm passengers, caused by the very low platform at their Dronfield, Sheffield area, station?

Captain Wallace: Although the platforms are low the company state that similar conditions exist at a number of other stations and that as circumstances


permit they are taking steps to improve the general standard of these platforms. The average daily number of passengers using each of the two platforms at this station is about 200 and having regard to the relatively small traffic the company do not feel that they would be justified in giving priority to improvements at Dronfield, the cost of which would amount to about £850. They also state that until the matter was raised by the Urban District Council on 4th July last, no complaints appear to have been made regarding the height of these platforms.

BRIDGE SCHEME, GREAT NORTH ROAD.

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Transport when work will commence on the road and bridge widening scheme at Boroughbridge, on the Great North Road?

Captain Wallace: The scheme for the construction of two bridges over Mil by Cut and the construction of a roundabout at the junction of the Great North Road and the Northallerton Road has reached an advanced stage. Negotiations with the railway company are proceeding and the necessary land is being acquired, but I am not at present in a position to say when the work will be begun. Details of a scheme for improving the bridge over the River Ure at Boroughbridge are being prepared.

Mr. York: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that a very serious fatal accident occurred on that bridge about three weeks ago, and whether there is any other bridge on the Great North Road which has no footpath?

Captain Wallace: I am afraid I should require notice of that question.

TRAFFIC CONGESTION, ELEPHANT AND CASTLE.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Transport what decision has been reached for the purpose of relieving the heavy traffic at the Elephant and Castle, especially with regard to the proposed by-pass at Union Road, in the borough of South-wark?

Captain Wallace: The London County Council have informed me that they propose to prepare a scheme for relieving the traffic congestion at the Elephant and

Castle, based on the assumption that it will not be necessary to provide for the perpetuation of the tramway system, but no decision has yet been reached. Whilst I am in favour of widening Union Road to enable traffic between Newington Causeway and New Kent Road to avoid the Elephant and Castle, the relief thus afforded would not, in my opinion, provide a solution of the difficulties at this junction.

Mr. Day: Am I to understand that the proposition to widen Union Road has now been abandoned?

Captain Wallace: I do not read the information which I have received from the London County Council in that way.

Mr. W. A. Robinson: May I ask respectfully what and where is the Elephant and Castle?

Captain Wallace: The Elephant and Castle is a public house to the south of this building.

LIVE RAIL ACCIDENTS, SOUTHERN RAILWAY.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents have occurred on the Southern Railway during the last 12 months from people coming in contact with the live rail; and how many miles of the new protective fencing have been put up by the company during that period?

Captain Wallace: During the 12 months ended 27th July last, eight people were killed and 50 injured on the Southern Railway through contact with the live rail. The company inform me that during the 12 months ended 30th June last they have erected 57 miles of special fencing.

Brigadier-General Brown: In view of the promise that they would get on with the job of putting up protective fencing and the niggardly way in which they are carrying out that promise, and in view of the fact that all new roads are being protected, cannot my right hon. and and gallant Friend do something to hurry up the railways in protecting their lines?

Captain Wallace: Of course, the whole of the railway is fenced, and my answer refers only to special fencing at particular danger points. My chief inspector of


railways tells me that he is satisfied with the progress which has been made by the Southern Railway in the matter.

Brigadier-General Brown: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that no one else is satisfied?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Ought not the live rail to be called the death rail?

Captain Wallace: If it lived up to its name as a death rail, it would not be much good for running trains.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Viscountess Astor: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now given further consideration to the introduction of legislation adopting the recommendations of the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Prevention of Road Accidents, particularly those dealing with education and alcohol, and with what result?

Captain Wallace: I intend to issue a comprehensive statement on this report, and in the meantime I would prefer not to deal in isolation with particular recommendations.

Viscountess Astor: Will the Minister bear in mind that the Committee recommended active propaganda regarding the effect of alcohol on drivers, and stated that the effect of even a moderate quantity was dangerous, and will he bear in mind how many thousands of people have been killed on the roads this year and really take some steps about it?

Captain Wallace: I have read the report, and I know very well that the Noble Lady is not in favour of what is known as "one for the road."

Viscountess Astor: May I ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind how many people have been killed in road accidents, and will he take into account the recommendations of this Committee, and not listen to the old school tie?

PROPOSED FORTH ROAD BRIDGE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Transport whether, during his visits to Scotland in the autumn, he will take steps to inform himself of the details relating to the proposed Forth road-bridge by visiting the site and by consulting with

those who have interested themselves in the project?

Captain Wallace: I am not yet in a position to decide what parts of Scotland I shall be able to visit during the Recess and I cannot undertake at present to include any particular locality in any tour that I may find it possible to make. I have, however, been made well aware of the views of those who have interested themselves in the project for a road bridge over the Forth. As I indicated in my replies to recent questions by the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) and Dunfermline (Mr. Watson), the Government are unable at present to offer any contribution towards the construction of a bridge in view of the other calls upon the national resources.

Mr. Mathers: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is taking definite steps to secure a census of traffic at this crossing during the coming week-end?

Captain Wallace: I think it was the hon. Member who asked me about that a fortnight ago, and he will be glad to know that I have arranged for observers to be there during this week-end.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman travel from Edinburgh into Fife by road, and see for himself what a road bridge across the Forth would mean?

ROAD CONDITIONS, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. Hills: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the main Pontefract road from Leeds Stourton to Oulton, particularly to the dangerous corner at Oulton Bottom; whether he is aware that this road carries heavy traffic and has a bad accident record; and what action he proposes to take?

Captain Wallace: The West Riding County Council have submitted a provisional scheme for widening and re-aligning about 1½ to 2 miles of this road in the neighbourhood of Oulton. As soon as detailed plans are supplied to my Department the scheme will be further considered with a view to making a grant from the Road Fund.

Mr. Lunn: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when this work is likely to be done, in view of the dangerous condition of the road?

Captain Wallace: It depends, to begin with, on how long it takes the West Riding County Council to send me the details of the plan.

Mr. Hills: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the road from Knottingly to Snaith, in the West Riding of Yorkshire; whether he is aware that this road, narrow, winding, with a bad surface, is inadequate to bear the heavy amount of transport which uses it; and what action he proposes to take?

Captain Wallace: The highway authority responsible for this road is the West Riding County Council. They have not submitted to me any proposal to widen and re-align the road; but a certain amount of re-surfacing has been carried out with grant assistance, and I am informed that further re-surfacing will be done this year. An application to bridge the level crossing at Hensall is under consideration with a view to a grant; and, in addition, a line for a proposed by-pass to Snaith has been approved under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935.

Mr. Hills: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take this up with the West Riding County Council and call their attention to the matter?

Captain Wallace: It is sometimes difficult for me to take up questions with county councils and call their attention to jobs which are really theirs. I find that I am not very popular when I do that.

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the road between Otley and Gisburn; whether he has been informed that this section of road, which carries heavy coast traffic during the season, is exceedingly narrow and winding and has resulted in many accidents; and what action he proposes to take?

Captain Wallace: I am aware of the traffic conditions on the trunk road between Ilkley and Gisburn, and I have already made Orders under Section 1 (3) of the Trunk Roads Act to safeguard the

line of a number of by-passes to the built-up areas and of diversions for the improvement of its alignment. Land is being acquired for widening to 120 feet along the section between Addingham and Cocking End. Plans are being prepared for the construction of a by-pass to Addingham and for the widening and realignment of sections from Gisburn to Stoop Hill Plantation and from Manor Park to Ilkley sewage works.

Mr. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the road from Headingly Hill to Otley Road, which although carrying a double tram-car track is exceedingly narrow and contains a dangerous bend which has been responsible for many accidents; and what action he proposes to take?

Captain Wallace: I understand the Leeds County Borough Council have purchased property with a view to a future improvement of the road between Grosvenor Road and Hyde Park. No application for a grant towards the cost of road works has been made, but I am informed that plans are in active preparation for this purpose.

Mr. Griffiths: And if application is made for a grant, will the Minister give it his very serious and pleasant consideration?

Captain Wallace: I will certainly give it serious consideration. All relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

Mr. Griffiths: And will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see that we get a grant?

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the Leeds-Pontefract road at John O'Gaunts Hill; whether he is aware that the surface is bad, and the approach is through a particularly dangerous and narrow bridge; that this stretch of road has a bad accident history; and what action he pro poses to take?

Captain Wallace: I have agreed to make a grant for resurfacing a section of this road (A.639) at John O'Gaunts Hill. The highway authority has submitted a scheme for widening and improving the road, which includes the bridge, and the proposed lay-out has been provisionally approved. I am now awaiting details in order to consider the question of a grant.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the road from Bramley to Bradford, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, particularly at Stanningley and Farsley, which has a bad surface the whole of the length; and as very heavy traffic passes over this road, and it has a bad accident record, what action he proposes to take?

Captain Wallace: The highway authority for this road is the West Riding County Council. I have not received any proposal from them for improving the surface of the road, but I will bring the hon. Member's question to their notice.

TRACTOR TRAILERS (ROAD DAMAGE).

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he is aware that serious damage has been done twice to roads in the Gretna area by the load of 95 tons conveyed by tractor trailers; and whether he will state if the cost of repairing the damage to roads and bridges will have to be borne by the local authorities, or whether the firm responsible will be made liable to pay for the repairs necessary;

(2) whether his attention has been called to the carriage by tractor and trailer of a 95-ton ingot mould from Sheffield to Scotland; that this tractor and trailer caused a subsidence at Gretna where it took eight days to have it raised; that it has now had a second subsidence and has gone through the road to the axles of the vehicle; that the road will have to be closed to other traffic for a week; and what action he proposes to take to prevent these heavy loads being taken by road?

Captain Wallace: I have received details of the accident which occurred on 20th July, when a trailer carrying a heavy casting sank into the Carlisle-Glasgow trunk road about seven miles north of Carlisle. The vehicle was extricated on 27th July. The cost of repair is not yet known, but the hauliers have been informed of the damage and that a claim will be made under the indemnity which was given by them before the load was taken over the trunk road. I understand that the vehicle left the trunk road at Annan and proceeded along a second-class road towards Lockerbie. The

vehicle sank into this road also, and I assume that the highway authority concerned will take similar action to recover the cost of the damage so caused. Abnormal loads may be carried only by vehicles of special type and subject to conditions laid down in the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) Order (No. 1), 1937. It is necessary on occasion to take by road heavy indivisible loads and, as far as I am aware, the provisions of the Order work satisfactorily on the whole.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not time that these heavy loads were stopped from using roads which are not strong enough to bear them, and should not the Minister of Transport revise the conditions under which he gives permission to these firms to carry these loads?

Captain Wallace: I do not altogether take that view. It is in the public interest that some of these loads should be conveyed from place to place. There are certain kinds of loads which cannot be carried on the railways for various reasons, and if, as in this case, we make sure that if a load damages the public highway, the people who take the load have to pay the damage, it seems to me that we are serving the public interest best by leaving the law as it is.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that the bridges over which these loads are being carried are not sufficient to withstand the loads that are being carried over them and that many of the railways will be damaged as well as the roads?

Captain Wallace: No load of this kind would be allowed to go over any bridge unless my Department was satisfied that the bridge was able to carry it.

Sir H. Williams: Would there be as much complaint if this ingot had been made in Scotland and was being brought to Sheffield?

Mr. Maclean: Just the same complaint. I have already made complaint in Scotland.

COLONIAL AFFAIRS (PARLIAMENTARY CONSIDERATION).

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Prime Minister whether a decision has been taken as to whether a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament should be


set up to co-operate with the Secretary of State for the Colonies on certain aspects of matters concerning the Colonial Empire?

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement regarding the institution of a standing Parliamentary Committee for Colonial affairs?

Mr. De Chair: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the findings of the Report on Nutrition in the Colonial Empire, he will hasten his decision as to the advisability of setting up a permanent committee in both Houses of Parliament to consider the affairs of the Colonial Empire?

Mr. David Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now decided to set up a Parliamentary Committee for the consideration of questions affecting the Colonial Empire?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There is a special responsibility resting upon Parliament, acting through the Secretary of State, for the welfare and progress of the British Colonies and Dependencies. His Majesty's Government recognise that this matter has been engaging the special interest and attention of a number of hon. Members in various parts of the House for some time past and they appreciate their anxiety that opportunities should be afforded to the House of keeping in closer touch with Colonial problems. The particular proposal for a Parliamentary Committee, no doubt presents certain advantages, but it raises issues of Parliamentary procedure and constitutional practice of a far reaching character which require very careful consideration. The Government have given the question some preliminary thought but they have not yet arrived at any final decision and it is proposed to enter into consultation with other parties in this House upon this and other aspects of the matter. I do not want to go further than this to-day but I hope to be able to make a more definite statement as to the Government's intentions in the autumn.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance to some of us who do not wish to see introduced into this Parliament that system which prevails in the American and French Parliaments, whereby the

responsibility of Ministers is diminished through the existence of Parliamentary Committees wth administrative powers?

The Prime Minister: That is one of the considerations which I have in mind.

Mr. De Chair: Is it not the case that the considerations which affect the Colonial Empire are somewhat different from those which the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) has just raised, because we are Members of Parliament for the Colonial Empire?

The Prime Minister: I have said in my answer that there is a special responsibility on Parliament for Colonial administration.

Mr. Garro Jones: Having regard to the far-reaching issues involved, does the right hon. Gentleman think that mere unofficial conversations through the usual channels are sufficient to deal with this matter; and would it not be more effective to set up a Select Committee to consider the question in all its aspects and report to the House?

The Prime Minister: I think not at this stage, at any rate. I think the best way is to begin with these unofficial communications which I have suggested.

SCOTLAND (DEFENCE).

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement regarding the special situation in the Western Isles in the event of war, especially in relation to naval defence, naval provisioning and refuelling; and what preparation is being made for any such purposes, with special reference to Stornoway?

The Prime Minister: As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on 17th November, 1938, the defence of Scotland is an integral and essential part of the defence of the United Kingdom as a whole. The defences include patrols of the coasts of the Western Isles by warships. It would be contrary to the public interest to disclose details of arrangements for naval provisioning or refuelling.

REFUGEES.

Wing-Commander James: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the


growth of public anxiety at the constantly increasing number of Jewish and other refugees being admitted to and remaining in this counntry for a longer time and under different conditions than was originally laid down, he will allot an early day after the Summer Recess for a discussion upon this subject?

The Prime Minister: I am unable at this stage to make any promise in regard to special facilities for debate.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that humane people, who are in the majority in this country, are much more concerned over the delay in dealing with refugees than about the number admitted who are being kept out of private means?

GENERAL ELECTION.

Major Stourton: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the hostility of the general public to a General Election while international tension persists; and whether, in view of the repeated Ministerial appeals to lay aside party strife in the public interest to meet a common danger, and of the recent action of the French Government in this connection, he will consider introducing legislation to amend Section 7 of the Parliament Act of 1911 so as to extend the duration of the present Parliament for a further two years?

Mr. Benn: On a point of Order. In reference to this question, I understood that matters of argument were not to be introduced into questions. This question appears to consist of some ideas of the hon. Member of an argumentative and, I may add, a rather muddled kind, which I should have thought were unsuitable for a question.

Mr. Speaker: It does not appear to be more argumentative than a great many other questions which are put on the Paper.

The Prime Minister: I should not be prepared to consider such a suggestion as is contained in my hon. and gallant Friend's question without some evidence of a general desire for the postponement of a General Election beyond the statutory term. At present I see no evidence of this kind.

Major Stourton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the interest of the security of the State it would be better to postpone a General Election until the prospects of peace are much more assured than at present?

Mr. Dingle Foot: Is there any connection between the appearance of this question on the Paper, and the somewhat diminutive Conservative majority in South Salford at the last General Election?

OLD AGE PENSIONS (INVESTIGATION).

Mr. Cartland: asked the Prime Minister whether, when considering the question of old age pensions, the Government will review the position of annuity and retirement schemes in operation in various firms, trades unions, co-operative societies, etc., with a view to bringing them with the State contributory scheme into one uniform national scheme?

The Prime Minister: This is one of the matters which will be considered by the Government in connection with their investigation into the system of old age pensions.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that private pensions and annuity funds are not amalgamated with State pensions?

The Prime Minister: There is no such intention at present in my mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD DEFENCE.

Wheat.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will replace those representatives of the milling combines who are at present serving on the advisory committees on the Government emergency wheat storage plan and appoint representatives who are entirely unconnected with operating the Government scheme for wheat storage, as the present arrangement places these representatives in an invidious position in discharging their duties?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): No, Sir. In view of the part which the three milling concerns are taking in the wheat


storage scheme, I consider that it is essential that they should be represented on the advisory committee.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is making history and that the Government have sold the grain trade for a mess of pottage to the milling combines; is he further aware that it will be said that in the year 1939 there was no one in the Government who had the courage to stand up against the scandal of the milling combines?

Mr. Graham White: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he can make any statement with regard to the purchase of 50,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat?

Mr. Morrison: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to a recent Press report to the effect that His Majesty's Government have decided to purchase up to 50,000,000 bushels of wheat for storage in Canada as a reserve. If so, I can say that it has no foundation.

Mr. White: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the transaction arising from the turnover of Government reserve wheat stocks have to date resulted in a profit or loss?

Mr. Morrison: Owing to the fall in the price of wheat which has occurred since the original purchase was made, the capital value of the Government wheat reserve has depreciated in the same way as all other stocks of wheat. The reserve was, however, purchased and is being held as a defence measure. Whether a profit or loss will be made on the transaction will depend on the price realised when the reserve is finally liquidated.

Mr. White: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the original loss has already been met?

Mr. Morrison: It is very difficult to say what the loss is, because although we had to buy wheat in the early days at a higher price than it fetches now, the total result of the transaction cannot be accurately assessed until the transaction is finished.

Mr. De la Bère: Why is it that the milling combine has virtually a free call on this wheat reserve?

Mr. Morrison: They have not a free call.

Mr. De la Bère: Has my right hon. Friend never heard of the scandal?

PLUMS (CANNING).

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in view of the fact that the crop of plums in the present season cannot be fully absorbed by the requirements of the market, he has considered the question of arranging to have the surplus quantity canned and stored as part of the national food reserve?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As regards the use of the powers contained in the Essential Commodities Reserves Act for the creation of a reserve of jams or canned fruit, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Howdenshire (Major Carver) on 5th July. I am, however, glad to say that it has been found possible to frame a scheme, in consultation with jam manufacturers, whereby the manufacturers will be invited to lay down this year a special reserve of plum pulp produced from plums grown in the United Kingdom. Grants will be payable, under certain conditions, in respect of stocks of pulp held by manufacturers additional to those required for their normal trade. In the event of an outbreak of war, this additional pulp would make possible the manufacture of additional supplies of jam.

Mr. W. A. Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be plum pulp or whether there will be turnips in it?

Mr. De la Bère: Is not that a reflection on the plum growers of Pershore and Evesham, who are the finest people in the country and produce the finest plums?

CANNED FOODSTUFFS.

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that although it is two years since the representatives of the canning industry sought the guidance of the Government as to how they could best contribute to the national food reserve they are still without any indication from the Government as to what contribution they are expected to make; whether he is aware that the industry could readily double its present output of canned foodstuffs from


existing plant; and whether he will take action without delay to ensure that the potentialities of this industry for the creation of food reserves shall be fully utilised?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As I have stated in reply to previous questions, the Food (Defence Plans) Department have contracted with fish canners in Great Britain for supplies of canned herring, and have purchased canned beef from Dominion and foreign sources, there being no production of canned beef in this country. The Department has also purchased some home-produced condensed milk for distribution to persons in the Government evacuation scheme. No other canned foodstuffs have been included in the Government reserves and I regret that it has accordingly not been possible to acquire for this purpose more of the products of the home canning industry. I am aware of the potentialities of the industry for meeting requirements in time of war.

INTER-ALLIED ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to collaborate with those Governments who are associated with His Majesty's Government on the basis of mutual guarantee for the purpose of ensuring a pooling of raw materials and foodstuffs in time of war?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: In the event of war, it would be the policy of His Majesty's Government to promote all possible forms of Inter-Allied economic co-operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

TRAWLERS.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state the terms under which the crews of the trawlers taken over by the Admiralty will be engaged to serve in these ships?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangements have been made to man the trawlers taken over by the Admiralty?

. Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how it is intended to man the 80 trawlers recently purchased for Admiralty work; whether they will be manned exclusively by Royal Naval Reserve ratings; and whether, to mitigate the unemployment which will be caused on the Humber, preference will be given to ratings from the Humber ports?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): It is intended that in general these trawlers shall be manned by men of the Royal Naval Reserve Patrol Service, which is recruited from fishermen. The personnel for manning trawlers in home waters will be invited to volunteer for service for six months and, having done so, will be called up under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act so as to give them the full protection of that Act. A smaller number from the Royal Naval Reserve will be required for service abroad, and these will be invited to enter into a temporary naval engagement for a period of one year, with possible extension. They will serve as naval ratings. In both cases preference will be given to members of the Patrol Service from the Humber ports. It will be appreciated that it is necessary to man these vessels with crews who have already had naval training in the Patrol Service, but in the case of skippers who may be most adversely affected by the purchase of these trawlers, consideration will be given to skippers who are not members of the Patrol Service, but who volunteer for service, should the number of Patrol Service skippers volunteering prove insufficient.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: While thanking my hon. Friend for what he has said, may I ask whether consideration will be given to those men of the crews who may be too old to enlist in the Royal Naval Reserve or who have been in the Royal Naval Reserve and have already passed the Service, and who would, in the case of war, be accepted for service in these trawlers, having in view the question of their re-employment in ships which are at present laid up?

Mr. Shakespeare: I will consider that point with sympathy.

Mr. Garro Jones: Has the hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the extent to


which these 84 trawlers will be manned by fishermen not now in the Fleet Reserve, and to what extent correspondingly they will be manned by people who are not engaged on those trawlers, and, therefore, what will be the extent of the displacement of trawl fishermen?

Mr. Shakespeare: I have tried to get figures, but so far have not succeeded in getting them.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: Will it be possible for the Royal Naval Reserve to be thrown open to further recruitment so that some of these men who will lose their jobs by the purchase of these trawlers could, by entering the Royal Naval Reserve, obtain employment?

Mr. Shakespeare: I am afraid I could not hold out any hope of that, because we are governed by our establishment.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any of the work of converting the trawlers to be purchased, to the purposes of the Royal Navy, is to be carried out at the ports on the Welsh side of the Bristol Channel; and, if so, what number of the trawlers are to be dealt with in that district?

Mr. Howard Gritten: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the Government are purchasing numbers of trawlers for conversion for Admiralty work and in view of the grave amount of unemployment in the Hartlepools, especially in the distressed area of Hartlepool, orders for such conversion can be placed with firms in the Hartlepools?

Mr. Shakespeare: The allocation of the work of conversion of these trawlers purchased by the Admiralty is being worked out. All relevant considerations will be borne in mind including the facilities available in the various firms for performing the work most expeditiously, and the desirability of allocating as much of the refitting work as possible to the ports from which the vessels will be taken.

Mr. Gritten: Will my hon. Friend specially bear in mind the distressed area of Hartlepool?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir, I have that and other ports in mind

RESERVE (FISHERMEN).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the new conditions governing enlistment of fishermen in the auxiliary fleet service?

Mr. Shakespeare: There has been no recent alteration in the regulations for entry of fishermen in the Royal Naval Reserve. Candidates can obtain detailed information from registrars of the reserve at all large fishing ports in the United Kingdom.

INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYÉS, DOCKYARDS.

Viscountess Astor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the proportion of established to non-established industrial employ é s in the dockyards in the years 1929, 1935, and the latest available date?

Mr. Shakespeare: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with my Noble Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

—
Established.
Unestablished.


1929
10,865
20,568




giving a proportion of 53 per cent. 


1935
8,237
23,031




giving a proportion of 36 per cent.


April 1939 
7,661
33,657 




giving a proportion of 23 per cent.

The marked reduction in the proportion of the numbers of established men as between 1935 and 1939 is the result of the very large increase in the entries of men in the dockyards which have recently taken place on account of the present abnormal situation.

HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE "THETIS" (SALVAGE).

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the desirability of raising the "Thetis," to ascertain, if possible, the cause of one of the torpedo bow-caps being open, and the difficulty of raising a vessel of over 1,000 tons dead weight by hawsers that, however carefully adjusted, are unlikely to take equal loads, he will consider taking steps to close the torpedo bow-cap of the


"Thetis" and seal any other opening so as to allow the water to be pumped out as has been so often done in many successful salvage operations when ships of much greater displacement have been raised to the surface?

Mr. Shakespeare: This method of salvage was fully considered but in view of the amount of diving required in strong tidal waters to seal the various tanks and compartments and the impossibility of getting all water out, it was not considered in this case to be practicable.

Mr. W. A. Robinson: Would the hon. Gentleman assert that the so-called tidal waters in Liverpool Bay have more severe currents than there are in Scapa Flow? The German Fleet was raised in Scapa Flow, and surely the currents there are as bad as they are in Liverpool Bay.

Mr. Shakespeare: The hon. Member's assertion is perfectly true, but we are talking now about salving a submarine, and not about the salvage of battleships.

Mr. Robinson: But they are a damn sight heavier.

PROPOSED AIR STATION, CRAIL, FIFESHIRE.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a decision has been reached regarding the proposed naval air station at Balcomie, Fife; what acreage of land is involved; and on what basis compensation for disturbance of agricultural interests is to be fixed?

Mr. Shakespeare: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) on 26th July [Official Report, Col. 1443]. About 500 acres of land are being acquired and the compensation to be paid for the disturbance of agricultural interests will be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Could my hon. Friend say whether farmers will be permitted to harvest their crops before the work begins?

Mr. Shakespeare: In so far as that can be done we shall aim at that, but if it

cannot be done, owing to the time at which operations must start, compensation will be paid for the crop.

NEW CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any additions to the 1939 programme of new construction are contemplated?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir. It has been decided to make considerable additions to the 1939 programme of new construction. These additions include 107 trawlers for mine-sweeping and antisubmarine duties, of which 20 will be specially built for the purpose and 87 will be purchased and converted. It is also proposed to construct 56 vessels of a whale-catcher type, some for service as patrol vessels and some for antisubmarine duties; 10 fleet minesweepers; six boom defence vessels, and one cable ship. The total number of vessels involved in the foregoing is 180. A floating dock to accommodate small craft up to 5.000 tons has also been purchased. Further additions are in contemplation, details of which I am not in a position to give at the moment but which will be announced as soon as possible. Provision for the expenditure which will be involved by these additions will be made in a Supplementary Estimate to be presented later in the financial year.

Mr. Ammon: Is it not intended to build any light cruisers?

Mr. Shakespeare: No, Sir, the hon. Member will recall that in the main our building programme is governed by the programme we announced at the beginning of the year, and we cannot depart from that without breaking the Naval Treaty.

Mr. White: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication of the amount of the Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Shakespeare: I should think it will be about £11,000,000.

Sir I. Albery: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether converted trawlers are likely to cost much more than new constructed naval trawlers?

Mr. Shakespeare: I should like notice of that question.

WEST INDIES (STATISTICAL INFORMATION).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the lack of accurate vital and other statistical information in the West Indies; and whether he is taking the necessary steps to repair this deficiency?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am aware that the existing machinery for the compilation of statistical information in the West Indies is defective in certain respects, since in the past such funds as the Colonial Administrations have had at their disposal have been devoted to work of a more urgent character. I am, however, fully alive to the desirability of improving the position in this respect as rapidly as financial circumstances permit.

Mr. Riley: Has the Minister impressed upon the Jamaican Government the desirability of having a census of the population?

Mr. MacDonald: The main considerations are set out in the answer to the question.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Riding Establishments Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

London Building Acts (Amendment) Bill [Lords

London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords]

West Gloucestershire Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER).

3.46 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move:
 That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Tuesday, 3rd October; provided that if it is represented to Mr. Speaker by His Majesty's Government that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the Adjournment, and Mr. Speaker is satisfied that the public interest does so require, he may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and the Government Business to be transacted on the day on which the House shall so meet shall, subject to the publication of notice thereof in the Order Paper to be circulated on the day on which the House shall so meet, be such as the Government may appoint, but subject as aforesaid the House shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to the day on which it shall so meet, and any Government Orders of the Day and Government Notices of Motions that may stand on the Order Book for the 3rd day of October or any subsequent day shall be appointed for the day on which the House shall so meet; provided also that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Chairman of Ways and Means, in his capacity as Deputy-Speaker, be authorised to act in his stead for the purposes of this Resolution.
As the House is aware, this Motion is not altogether novel in character. A Motion in a somewhat similar form was first adopted in 1920, when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was Prime Minister, and it has been used on numerous occasions since. It empowers Mr. Speaker, upon representations made to him by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date than that named in the Motion if it is required in the public interest. It also enables the Government to appoint the business to be taken on the day of meeting, because the special circumstances which might require this power to be put into operation might also make it necessary for the Government to bring forward proposals requiring immediate attention on the part of the House. The terms of the Motion do not lay down any period of notice to be given, and the only thing really is to consider what would be a reasonable time to enable us to reach Westminster. In the past the notice has been as short as 48 hours, which was the case in 1938. The Motion provides that the House shall adjourn until Tuesday, 3rd October, giving a recess of two months. That is a much shorter period than has been usual in recent years, but the reason, I think, is

evident. Our normal business this Session has been interrupted by emergency legislation which has taken a considerable time, and that has necessitated the postponement until the autumn of a considerable amount of business. Therefore, the date of 3rd October has been fixed in order to allow the House to finish off outstanding business and to give time for certain Commons Bills, such as the Criminal Justice Bill, the British Shipping (Assistance) Bill and the two Bills which were presented yesterday, namely, the Loan Facilities and the Food (Defence) Bills, to be considered in another place.
We believe that this date will give an opportunity of starting the new Session well before Christmas, and enabling us to make a good start with legislation in the new programme. On Friday of this week we shall have finished all our essential business and we shall have passed all the emergency legislation which is necessary. We could not possibly adjourn if there were further legislation of an emergency character which we thought it necessary to pass now, but Parliament has dealt with all that we think will be necessary at the present, and we can be assured that the country is ready for any emergency.
The Motion which provides for calling Parliament together earlier than 3rd October leaves responsibility for making the recommendation to Mr. Speaker where it properly belongs, in the hands of the Government, because they alone have full knowledge of all the circumstances. I do not know whether, in the course of the Debate, the right hon. Gentleman intends to suggest that the Government have failed to exercise their powers, for the sake of their own convenience and for avoiding interrogation by the House, but I may point out that the Government's existence is dependent upon their maintaining the approval of this House. There are two reasons which might cause the Government to feel that it was necessary to call the House together during the Recess. One would be that it was necessary to ask the House to pass new legislation which is not at this moment contemplated, or not contemplated to be urgent, and the other, if they desired to have the approval of the House for measures which they had taken or were about to take in order to meet an unexpected situation.
As I have already mentioned, we have had experience of the working of Motions of this character. We know that they are not a mere form, because they have actually been used on no fewer than six occasions, in 1924, 1931, 1932, 1935, 1938 and again in this year, 1939. We have no information which leads us to suppose that it will be necessary to call the House together at any particular moment in a fortnight or three weeks, but certainly if, after the House had adjourned, it were in our minds that circumstances had arisen which brought into play either of the two considerations I have mentioned, we should not hesitate to use our powers accordingly. The assurance which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the other day when he put a question I repeat, that if the Government were contemplating any important departure from their declared policy they would think it right to give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion and without waiting for the day appointed for the resumption of the ordinary Session.
It may be convenient if I do not anticipate or attempt to anticipate anything which may be said in support of the Amendments upon the Paper. I shall have, no doubt, an opportunity of speaking again in the course of the Debate in reply to the Amendments, if they are moved

3.56 p.m..

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out "Tuesday, 3rd October," and to insert "Monday, 21st August."
On all sides of the House there is a recognition to-day of the uncertainty of the international situation. The Amendment is upon the Paper because of that uncertainty. The situation, which we cannot, and His Majesty's Government cannot completely, control is, we believe, one which requires vigilance on the part of the British House of Commons. Apart from the feeling of apprehension with regard to the immediate weeks which lie ahead of us, there is a suspicion that, once this House rises, the Government may take the wrong turning. I want to put it quite bluntly. A considerable number of Members of this House, not confined to my colleagues on these benches, do not trust this Government. That is the

root of the matter to-day. Because of that feeling of distrust we have thought it right to ask for an earlier meeting of this House than the Government propose. When I consider the events of the past few days, when I see my hon. Friend the Member for Come Valley (Mr. W. G. Hall) sitting here with a doubled majority, when I learn that at Brecon and Radnor the Government have been handsomely and properly trounced, I think I can say that a large number of our citizens also, like myself, do not trust the Government.
It is proper for us to argue that if the Government merit the trust of Members of this House and of the public they need not fear to meet the House of Commons, put their cards on the table and tell us what the world situation is like, even as early as 21st August. They would welcome an opportunity of meeting this House on 21st August. Hon. Members who sit behind me are naturally apprehensive at the prospect of a gap of two complete months with Parliament dispersed. I think I can speak for Members outside my party when I enter a most emphatic protest against the decision of the Government. The Government are complacent. The Prime Minister's complacency is not shared by my hon. Friends, nor indeed, I imagine, is it shared by hon. Members on the Liberal Benches below the Gangway, nor by a proportion of the Members who sit on the other side of the House. [Hon. Members: "Who are they?"] That matter will be tested in the Division Lobby. We are dealing with a rapidly changing situation, and in a situation of that kind, even if the Government were trusted 100 per cent. I should still think it right that Parliament should meet before the expiration of the two months. I appreciate the fact that the final responsibility for action, right or wrong, or inaction, rests with the Government. I realise the point that the Prime Minister made. But we on this side represent a very substantial portion of the nation, and although after the two recent by-elections it is hard to say how large a portion I should imagine that people who are like minded with us in this matter represent the majority of the people of this country. Those of us who are in opposition have an unanswerable claim to express our views from time to time in this period of grave danger, more


especially if we feel, as we have a right to feel, that the Government are in error.
The Prime Minister last week, when I put a question to him and there was a little interchange across the Floor, deprecated the meeting of the House during the time of a normal Recess, because he said it might indicate to the world that we were in state of jitters. As a York-shireman I am not a jittery person myself. Nor are the people of this country suffering from jitters now, whatever may have been the situation last September. The knowledge that in three weeks' from our rising on Friday Parliament is to meet, would, I believe, not create new apprehensions, but would on the other hand strengthen the spirit of the people of this country and fortify their confidence. If during the two months' gap Parliament were hastily summoned, there would be jitters the world over and that would not be confined to the people of this country. It might be regarded in some quarters as a sign of national weakness. If we met in the normal way in three weeks' time to consider the international situation, who would regard that as a sign of jitters or cowardice? It might have a potent influence on those agencies abroad which are continually looking for signs of weakness on the part of the people of this country. Our recent activities in the air and on the sea have not been regarded as a sign of jitters, and if those activities, the object of which is perfectly clear to the world, I hope, were reinforced by the knowledge that the mother of Parliaments, still respected and still feared by those people who profess to despise it, was keeping a watchful eye on the course of events, I believe that would have a very steadying effect on opinion both at home and abroad.
No one is going to deny that the world is in a state of turmoil. The peace of mankind is threatened, not at one point but at several points. Although the Prime Minister has gone some little way in suggesting that the House would be called together if a change of policy were contemplated, one looks at the situation regarding the negotiations with the U.S.S.R. Those negotiations have dragged on for weeks and months, and what guarantee have we that when our backs are turned the Government will not throw in their hands on this question of a triple alliance or arrangement between us and France and Russia? I am not

saying they will do so, but I am saying that they might. It is this situation that our Amendment is moved to meet, to make quite certain that the Government under one pretext or another are not going to run away from their declared policy.
Danzig has been the subject of questions in this House for some weeks. I think we all realise the disquieting situation there—the increase in the police force, the increase in the Army, the planting of anti-aircraft guns and so forth. The situation is of a kind which might give rise to very serious difficulties. Within the past few days there have been frontier incidents. Quite apart from the will of any man for peace, the greatest danger to-day is an incident. If one of the great personages in Europe is suffering from a bad liver and learns that six German subjects have been shot in Danzig, it only needs such a situation for the world to be at war within 24 hours. No one is going to pretend that Danzig at the present time is a pleasant seaside holiday resort. It happens to be one of the danger spots in Europe. Closely associated with that problem is the question of the Polish loan. I think that some of the Chancellor's answers on this question have been evasive and unsatisfactory. We have had experience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the past, and one does not know whether within the next week or two, if difficulties are not surmounted, he will not throw in his hand on the question of a Polish loan, which is obviously a question of the highest political importance. Then Hen Hitler has always relied on the element of surprise. Our eyes to-day are fixed on Danzig. Suppose that during the dog days, when hon. Members are away on holiday, Herr Hitler turns his eyes to Yugoslavia. What information I have goes to show that the situation there may easily become another danger spot in Europe. What would the Government do about that? We have had no real declaration of policy on that subject, and I cannot trust the Government to make one unless they face us and tell us what that policy really is.
In the Far East, where there has been a certain caution on the part of the Government with regard to its policy, the situation is really one of considerable gravity. In the last few weeks we have seen the Government submitting to one humiliation after another and making


formal protests. How do we know that the Far East is not to be another Munich before the House reassembles on 3rd October? One could give other indications of the dangers through which we are passing at the moment. I submit that in a world like this, with the prospect of war not in one but in several places, it is not reasonable that Parliament should adjourn for two months. I do not say that because I do not want a holiday. I should be delighted to have two months' holiday, and indeed a longer holiday, but after all there are certain public responsibilities which Members of this House are expected to fulfil, and it seems to me to be on the verge of a national scandal that in a situation as critical as it is to-day this House should be calmly asked by the right hon. Gentleman to go away and think about nothing for the next two months. The right hon. Gentleman does not want us to think about anything. We do not know what may happen in the interval. But I have a vivid recollection of what happened last August and September. Day by day after the House had risen the situation in Czecho-Slovakia progressively deteriorated. No one can deny that.
I remember that on occasions my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I, and I believe the Leader of the Liberal party on occasions, saw the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary during those days, and as the Opposition we demanded a meeting of this House on more than one occasion. We were refused it. The House was reassembled eventually to witness a funeral party; it was reassembled when a great people had had its independence taken away from it. There was little point in meeting at that time after the damage had been done. The right hon. Gentleman may say that we could not have altered the situation. I think we might have fortified the spirit of the Government. It is idle for Parliament to fiddle while Rome is burning. What is at the basis of our demand is not that we should be called together to face an accomplished fact; our demand is that, in these times, the House of Commons ought to meet from time to time to consider what the international situation is. It changes from day to day. It is good that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should know the views of some of us who do not agree with him. I ask

myself these questions in all sincerity: Are the Poles to be let down in the next two months? Is Danzig to be sacrificed? Is the pass to be sold in the Far East? Are any betrayals of this kind to take place during the Recess without public discussion? I believe, myself, that the overwhelming majority of the public of this country would wish Parliament to be alert during this very critical time.
Proposals that have been made for keeping public representatives in active touch with the situation have not found favour in all quarters of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party is suggesting that Parliament should be called on the request of a substantial number of Members. Let me say quite frankly, though I am pleading with what energy I have for an early assembly of Parliament, that I could not myself accept the view that a substantial number of Members should call the House together. The responsibility must lie with the Government. If the Government are determined to rule without the check of freely expressed criticism, admonition and honest advice, and drift into great difficulties, the responsibility is theirs and not ours. We are suggesting to-day an early and, I should hope, frequent reassembly of Parliament, in order that we may play our part in trying to form opinion in this House and opinion outside this House. If the Government reject that advice, I say again that it lies on their heads and not on ours. I would never pretend that we can take away from the Government their primary responsibility, but we can absolve ourselves from responsibility to the people whom we represent. Our demand is that this Assembly shall not scatter to the four winds for two whole months, during which time, because of mistaken action, or because of inaction, or because of doubts in the minds of the public, the die may be cast as between war and peace. I welcome the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, even if he does not concede our Amendment, that, before there is any departure from declared policy, there will be a meeting of this House.
Finally, I say that this is not a time for the by-play of ordinary small party politics, though there are, and will continue to be, fundamental differences between us on matters of policy. I want to assure the House—and I am speaking now for a body of people as responsible


as hon. Members on the other side—I want to assure the House that our primary concern is the great issue of war and peace. It is not because we want to embarrass the Government on details, not because we want to give up a well-earned holiday, but because we care whether it is to be war or peace, and wish to ensure that what knowledge and experience we have to contribute is brought into the common pool of this House, and to ensure so far as we can, with our responsibilities, that no false steps are taken, that we believe that the House ought to continue to play its rightful part in any important decision that might be reached. If the worst comes, which God forbid, it is far better to have a House of Commons that is united on principles than to have a House a large number of patriotic Members of which feel that they have been misled. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider very gravely whether he should not call the House together earlier, not because it indicates our view, but because it will indicate his view about the value of this House of Commons, whose traditions are being threatened by the people who are creating the situation which has led us to put down the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman is a good House of Commons man, as I trust he is, I hope he will see the essential reason of the claim that we put forward.

4.21 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I rise to support the Amendment which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. If I had known that he was not going to persist in the proposal he made last week, that we should have regular meetings every week during the Recess, and that he was going to adopt the proposal which I made, that we should meet on a specific pre-arranged date, I should not, of course, have put down the Amendment proposing 22nd August. There is very little difference, from the point of view of convenience, between the 22nd and the 21st. The 22nd happens to be a Tuesday, which to many hon. Members, especially those from Scotland, is a little more convenient than a Monday, but if the Leader of the Opposition prefers Monday, the 21st, and if that is the general feeling of the House, I shall very gladly support that proposal. As regards my second Amendment, I had intended to move it only in this spirit, that if we could not

get agreement on a date for the reassembly of the House, we should try to explore some other way in which the House could be associated with the grave decisions which the Government may have to make during the Recess. I hope, in the first place, that the Prime Minister may, after all, find himself able to accept the proposal which is now under discussion. If not, I hope that this may not be the end of it, and that we may find some other means of keeping the Government in touch with all schools of thought in this House and with all sections of opinion during the Recess, at a time when our minds are preoccupied with the possibility of grave events.
I agree, of course, and I should be sailing under false colours if I did not make it clear to the House that I agree, with the criticism of the Government which the Leader of the Opposition made in the opening part of his speech. That part of his speech, I thought, though, of course, it was much more eloquent and more trenchant, was rather like the speech which I myself had the opportunity of making on Monday, but it is not the kind of ground on which I want to argue this case to-day, and I do not think it is a ground that would appeal to the House. I think we want to consider the matter from a wider point of view.
This Amendment does not really raise the question of confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government. That is not really at issue. I am not pretending to have that confidence; I hope the Prime Minister will not think that I am; all I am saying is that it is not raised in the proposal which is being brought before impute lack of confidence to supporters of the House. The Prime Minister does no his—I see some of them sitting around me—who from day to day put to him very searching questions on foreign affairs, on China, on Poland, and on many other aspects of policy. He does not impute lack of confidence to them for doing that. On the contrary, he knows that they are only exercising their responsibilities as representatives of great constituencies in this House. My claim is only that we ought to have the opportunity, during the next few months, of exercising those responsibilities from time to time—that we ought not to separate for so long as two months, but that we ought to come back in three weeks to consider


what the situation then is. When I made this proposal last week, the Prime Minsiter said to me, "There is no reason to suppose that there will be a crisis in three weeks' time." Of course I entirely agree, but there are all sorts of other things that we may have to consider then, even if there is no crisis. I am going to mention one or two of them in a few moments. I suggest that we should come back on 21st or 22nd August, that we should consider the situation as it exists then, and that we should then consider on what date we should meet again, perhaps some time about 15th September.
Of course it is true, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, that we all want a holiday, that we all of us feel the urge for a holiday; though I do not think it is quite so true that we have nothing to do during the holiday. Some of us have a good deal to do during that time. I agree, however, with the Leader of the Opposition that at the end of the next three weeks, towards the end of this month, our constituents all over the country will be looking to us, as they were at about the same time last year, and demanding that we should assemble here to discuss the affairs of the nation and see that the country, in a serious situation, comes to no harm. The Prime Minister has repeated to-day a pledge which he gave to the Leader of the Opposition last week at Question Time, that there would be no important departure from declared policy during the Recess. But that does not really carry us any way at all. What is an important departure from declared policy? For example, was Berch-tesgaden a departure from declared policy last year? The decisions taken at Berch-tesgaden set us on that road which, as I said at the time in public, would inevitably, and did in fact, lead Herr Hitler to Prague. Therefore, I say that a mere assurance that there will be no departure in policy does not carry us far enough. We want to know for certain that before grave decisions like that are taken the House of Commons will have a chance to discuss the issues in public here, to inform the people, and to assist in taking the decision which will have to be taken in the name of Great Britain.
What is the case for this Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for

Epping (Mr. Churchill) one day last week asked the Prime Minister:
 Does not my right hon. Friend consider that if, during the early days of August, the mobilisation of the German Army is steadily proceeding, it would appear rather incongruous to announce that Parliament has adjourned until 25th October? 
Actually the date is 3rd October, but I think the Prime Minister would agree that that does not affect the argument. The Prime Minister answered:
 That is a hypothetical question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July; cols. 1658–9, Vol. 350.]
But it is no longer hypothetical. We are now in the early days of August, and the mobilisation of the German Army has continued, and we are assured by newspapers—not those newspapers with alarmist placards of which hon. Members complain, but newspapers of the highest repute, including those which support the Government—that there are 2,000,000 men under arms in Germany. I suggest that there was great pertinence in the question that the right hon. Gentleman put, and that at such a time the House ought not to disperse for so long.
There were two views in the House on Monday on Danzig. One was put by many Members, including myself, and with great force by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), that German military preparations were menacing. The Prime Minister took the opposite view, that there was no cause for undue concern, but yesterday and to-day we read in the "Times," which is a most faithful supporter of the Government, that these military preparations are in fact continuing, that rifles, machine guns, anti-aircraft guns, anti-tank guns, and even heavy guns with concrete emplacements, are being put into position at Danzig, that the roads to East Prussia are being improved, that bridges are being built across the rivers to improve communications between Danzig and East Prussia, that traps for tanks and armoured cars are being laid in Danzig territory, and that inspections are being carried out in Danzig by high officers of the German Army. The statement that such inspections are being carried out was made last week. It was denied on official authority in Berlin during the week-end. All the more remarkable was it that the "Times" on Monday said that it had


reason to believe, in spite of the denials, that these high officers were there.
The Prime Minister said on Monday that he would not add to the statement that he had made on the situation, but my submission is that the situation has changed, that it has been deteriorating in Danzig since he made that statement. The Prime Minister spoke of the statesmanlike restraint of the Polish Government, but restraint will not save Danzig, and may lead us to the position where we shall be faced with the choice between surrender and war. Restraint did not save the Emperor of Abyssinia or President Benes. When the Prime Minister came back from Berchtesgaden he told us that the levers had been pulled and the machinery could not be stopped. Restraint had been carried so far that there was no choice between surrender or war. That is the situation that we wish to have a chance of averting in future. If only we had previously made arrangements with France and Russia and mobilised the Fleet last year, as many Members were urging the Government to do, we could then have saved peace and saved Czecho-Slovakia.
I have mentioned Danzig and the continued mobilisation of the German Army. Then there is Poland. There have been difficulties over this loan for Poland. I hope the Prime Minister will not retort to me that merely by mentioning them I am raising suspicion and hinting that the Government do not want to assist Poland. That is not what I am doing. [Interruption.] I mentioned what is indeed a fact, which nobody can deny, which is being stated outside this House; and surely we have not got so mealy-mouthed in this House that we cannot mention facts of that kind. We have encountered difficulties over the loan. I am not imputing blame for that, but surely we hope that these difficulties will be overcome, that Poland can be made as strong as possible, so that she can stand up for her rights and deter the aggressor from breaking the peace. If these difficulties are overcome, will not legislation be required in order to enable the loan to be made? Would it not be much better that the House should be meeting automatically in three weeks' time in order that that may be dealt with? There may be a serious and critical situation, in which it might not be helpful for the Prime Minister to summon Parliament specifically in order to make a loan to

Poland for the purchase of military materials. Surely it would be much better that we should be meeting automatically.
Then there is China. The same kind of situation may arise there. Surely we ought to be on the spot at the end of these Tokyo negotiations to deal with the situation that may confront this country. Then there is Russia. So great is the importance that I attach to the conclusion of these negotiations with Russia that I repeat what I have said in this House before, that I do not think we ought to rise before they are completed, because I feel that on their success or otherwise may depend the issue of peace or war.
But certainly, if we are going to rise we ought to be back before the end of August. We ought not to get into the position that we may be summoned back again this year, as we were last year, in order to take that terrible choice between plunging into war or surrendering to the aggressor. We ought to meet at the end of August to consider the situation then, and to decide how soon we should meet again. I feel, for that reason, that it is better to have a definite date. Rather than arranging to meet at intervals, let us decide to meet at the end of August, to consider the situation as it is then and to decide when the public interest demands that we should have another sitting.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: I must say I regret the terms of the Government's Motion, and, although not altogether for the same reasons, I find myself endorsing the pleas which have been advanced from both the Opposition parties in the House. But I still hope that the Prime Minister has not said his last word on this subject. It is in that hope that I venture to offer a few reasons for my opposition to the Motion. This House is sometimes disparaged in this country, but abroad it counts. Abroad, the House of Commons is counted, and especially in dictator countries, as a most formidable expression of the British national will and an instrument of that will in resistance to aggression. "Surely that is a fact which must be admitted. The dictators themselves have not been slow to notice that minority opinion in this House has seemed in one way to influence the course of Government action. It is in accordance with minority opinion in this House that


we have come together upon a foreign policy upon which all are agreed, a foreign policy which the two dictator States deeply deprecate. Therefore, I say that we count deeply in their thoughts.
If you wish to check this by examination, see how oddly they have timed various strokes which have been made in the recent past for occasions when the House has risen and the Members are on their holidays. Take the latest of all, the Albanian outrage at Easter. It was nicely timed for the moment when it was known that Parliament was scattered, when the Ministers were scattered—and when the Mediterranean Fleet, unfortunately, was scattered, too. They timed it for that purpose. Then look at last year, when we parted in similar circumstances to the present. Until then there were no suspicious troop movements in Germany. It was only then that there began all these movements for the pretended peaceful purposes of a local manoeuvre. It may sound rather a vain thing for a Member of Parliament to say, but it seems to me that this House is a recognised addition to the defences of Great Britain, that we are safer when the House is sitting, and that the power and will of this House count very much, and, properly commanded, will reinforce the power of His Majesty's Government. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be regrettable if we, as it were, go out of action just at a time when the situation is becoming most acute.
I would not press this argument so far as to suggest that if the House goes on sitting night and day there will be no crisis. That would, indeed, by exaggerating the argument, but I have the feeling that things are in a great balance, and that even minor matters of a favourable character cannot be neglected if they can be thrown in on the right side of the scale. Therefore, I should regret it very much if we were now to pass a Resolution scattering ourselves to the winds till October. This is an odd moment for the House to declare that it will go on a two months' holiday. It is only an accident that our summer holidays coincide with the danger months in Europe, when the harvests have been gathered, and when the powers of evil are at their strongest.

The situation in Europe is graver than it was at this time last year. The German Government have already 2,000,000 men under arms actually incorporated in their Army. When the new class joins before the end of August more than 500,000 will be added to this number automatically. All along the Polish Frontier from Danzig to Cracow there are heavy massings of troops, and every preparation is being made for a speedy advance. There are five German divisions in a high state of mobility around Breslau alone. The roads, as the Leader of the Liberal party mentioned, towards Poland through Czecho-Slovakia are being raised to the highest condition. Quarries are being opened for material, and so forth, by enforced Czecho-Slovak labour.
I have been told—I may be wrong. but I have not always been wrong—that many of the public buildings and of the schools in large parts of Czecho-Slovakia, Bohemia certainly, have been cleared and prepared for the accommodation of wounded. But that is not the only place. There is a definite movement of supplies and troops through Austria towards the East. The right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition put his finger upon another danger spot which might easily be exchanged for the one which now occupies our thoughts. There is the strained situation in the Tyrol, most significant as indicating the tenseness of the situation, where Herr Hitler has been willing to do the thing which must have caused him the greatest wrench in order to make sure of his Italian confederates. All these are terribly formidable signs. And on our side, too, and among our Allies, are great preparations. The Fleet is largely mobilised. We congratulate the Government on the timely step they have taken, and we support them in it. As many men as can possibly be accommodated in camps are in training, and the anti-aircraft gunners are at their stations. Is this, then, the moment that we should separate and declare that we separate until the 3rd October? Who can doubt that there is going to be a supreme trial of will power, if not indeed a supreme trial of arms. At this moment in its long history, it would be disastrous, it would be pathetic, it would be shameful for the House of Commons to write itself off as an effective and potent factor in the situation, or reduce whatever strength it


can offer to the firm front which the nation will make against aggression.
Then, of course, it is asked, "Do you trust the Prime Minister?" The Leaders of both Oppositions made it perfectly clear that they did not trust him, but that is not the position of some of those who are anxious that an arrangement should be reached by which Parliament will not pass entirely out of being for so long a time; that is not the position which we on this side of the House adopt. I, personally, accept what the Prime Minister says, and when he makes solemn public declarations I believe that he will do his best to carry them out. I trust his good faith in every respect, but that does not really dispose of the whole issue. It might be that his good faith was in no way in question, either about the rising of the House or other matters at all, but there might be a difference of judgment. I use the word "judgment" with some temerity, because my right hon. Friend twitted me some time ago about that notorious defect which I have in my composition. I have not looked up all his, own declarations in any captious spirit, and I will not pursue that this afternoon, but it is not quite clear that the judgment which the Prime Minister might form upon the facts as they unfolded would be a legitimate and natural topic upon which differences of opinion would arise between us.
Take, for instance, a very late example, this question of Danzig. The Leader of the Liberal party stated how grievous the situation was in Danzig, and my right hon. Friend said that the situation was exaggerated. It is only two days ago, but now we read in the "Times" that the official Gazette of Poland has made a statement of the facts in Danzig which goes much further than the statement put forward by the Leader of the Liberal party which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister thought was exaggerated. So there may be differences, quite honest differences, upon the emphasis itself and upon the facts, and it is in respect of these differences which arise when men are working on the same policy, and when they are agreed that an interchange of opinion in the House of Commons would be from time to time most desirable. It is a very hard thing, and I hope it will not be said, for the Government to say to the House, "Begone! Run off and play. Take your gas masks with you. Do not

worry about public affairs." Leave them to the gifted and experienced Ministers who, after all, so far as our defences are concerned, landed us where we were landed in September last year, and who, after all—I make all allowances for the many difficulties—have brought us in foreign policy at this moment to the point where we have guaranteed Poland and Rumania, after having lost Czechoslovakia, and not having gained Russia.
That is, indeed, a hard, an unreasonable and unnatural proposal, especially when the House is agreed upon the basis of policy, and when it has a difference with the Government it is because it desires to urge them more vigorously forward and not to hinder them in the policy which they have declared. I did hope that my right hon. Friend would have taken exactly the opposite point of view, and that the roles would be reversed. I should have expected to see him come down to the House, and, at that Box, assume an air of exceptional gravity, and say that he regretted that he had to make a demand on the good will and patience of the House, and upon its public spirit and that the circumstances were such that he could not bear the whole responsibility for months at a time without recourse to the sense of the Commons and without contact with his colleagues in the House of Commons, and that, therefore, he must ask the House to come back on frequent occasions during the interval. Then it would have been for the Opposition to say, "Of course it is very serious, but if the Prime Minister demands it on a policy on which we are agreed, it will be our duty to comply with his request."
How would it be if we came back in three weeks' time, before the end of August so that we could all be in complete agreement? [An Hon. Member: "Why adjourn for three weeks?"] I should think it would be a pretty safe thing to adjourn for a fortnight or three weeks now. [An Hon. Member: "Let us go on."] Surely we are not going to ask that we should stay here night and day, or that we should never come back. That is far too narrow a dilemma. Lord Balfour used to say that this is a singularly ill-contrived world, but it is not so ill-contrived as that. I would like to endorse the argument that it will not be so easy to recall Parliament once it has been dispersed. [An Hon. Member: "Why?"] I am going to tell you. I


have to tell hon. Gentlemen a lot. I am always ready "he reason is that events move on from day to day, and it is very difficult to say at what point a situation is being created which requires the recall of Parliament. Moreover, the recall of Parliament in the present circumstances will denote a situation of the gravest emergency, because the Fleet is already mobilised. The recall of Parliament will mean in all probability that something has occurred which brings us right up against the supreme decision.
The Leader of the Opposition in his speech made what was, I think, a non sequitur in his argument, and, pointing at the Prime Minister, said that the responsibility lies upon him. But I think it would be a mistake to add this responsibility to all the others which my right hon. Friend so stoutly and valiantly bears. It is a very invidious responsibility, when there is a great division of opinion, as there is, in the country, and when there are all sorts of suspicions which he considers are unworthy, but which are sincere in many ways, when there will be all kinds of agitations, and when troubles occur, to have Parliament summoned. It is a needless responsibility, when, on the other hand, the summoning of it involves the declaration of an emergency so serious that it may well hamper the delicate negotiations which at the last moment might be in progress. I should think that it would be a matter of foresight and prudent convenience to have had a day at the end of August up your sleeve when there would be no crisis. If the date were the 22nd or 25th August, or whatever it might be, then, if all is well, very few people need come. The Ministers need not attend. [Interruption.] Certainly, if all is well. [Laughter.] Do not laugh. After all, we are all in the same boat. I noticed a sort of spirit on these benches to try and run this matter through on ordinary party loyalty, but we are not going to get through these troubles on the basis of party loyalty and calling everyone who differs unpatriotic. If that sort of atmosphere were created I am sure that it would be absolutely swept away by the wind from the country.
I am very sensitive to the atmosphere of the House, and I think that the effort ought to be to try to bring us as much together as possible, and not to imagine that people will be deterred from saying

what they intend to say at any time because it causes unpopularity, or because there is a sort of organised scowl directed at them. I think it would be a very wise and prudent step from the point of view of national administration to have this date which you could put your hand on if needed and, if not, it would pass off as nothing but a needless formality. I suggest and hope that that may be weighed and considered by my right hon. Friend.
There is only one thing more that I wish to say, and it is in the nature of an appeal to my right hon. Friend. He wrote a letter in a recent election—Monmouthshire, I think—appealing for national unity. What does national unity mean? It surely means that reasonable sacrifices of party opinions, personal opinion and party interest should be made by all in order to contribute to the national security. Here is an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to take a quite important step to put himself in a better relation with those forces in the country who lie outside the ranks of his numerous and faithful adherents. This is not an occasion when the House should part with reproaches and with difference of opinion. On the contrary, we ought to part as friends who are facing common problems and resolved to aid each other as far as it is possible. I hope, indeed, that my right hon. Friend will even at this moment not refuse to take into consideration the opinion of the House as a whole, including minorities in the House, and, if they want to meet again at the end of the month, endeavour to meet them upon that point. If he were to do so now, I tell him here that he would render a great service to his country, because this country cannot be guided through its present difficulties except by the Leader of the Conservative party, and the Leader of the Conservative party will never be chosen from any quarter except by that party itself. It is, therefore, necessary for him to do his utmost to conciliate other opinion, now so widely estranged, and make himself the true leader of the nation as a whole.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: There is an earnest desire on the part of the House to give the world a feeling of confidence that we are ready to face any danger. It may be said that Members of Parliament are wanting a holiday. I agree that we are all wanting


a holiday, but I regard the affairs of State as of far greater importance than our own personal desires. It is because of that that I want the Prime Minister to realise what it means when Members on these benches are asking him to fix a date when Parliament shall meet again. If things go right, what greater pleasure could the Prime Minister have when we meet again than to be able to announce that he had an agreement with Soviet Russia and that tension was easier throughout Europe? If, on the other hand, we depart to-morrow with no understanding at all, there will be a feeling of grave apprehension in the mind of every one of us. When I address meetings I am asked, "How is it that Parliament can see its way to adjourn for two or three months when you are telling us that there is grave unrest in all parts of the world?" If we assure them that the Prime Minister has told us that he will call us together if anything arises, they will say, "What about last September? What happened then? You know you ought to have been called together much earlier than you were."
That is the position we have to face in the country, and the Prime Minister ought to take note of what we think on the back benches in making this appeal. I can understand his not wanting to take advice from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)or from the Leader of the Opposition, but when ordinary rank-and-file Members come to him with this appeal, knowing what is happening, I think some regard ought to be given to it. I should much prefer to continue my holiday and make arrangements for a month or two months' rest, but I cannot, with my mind in the state it is, enjoy the holiday as I should like. I believe I could come back in a fortnight's time and get an assurance from the Prime Minister that things were going on all right or, if not, and we had arrived at a point when something required to be done, he would know that he had the united backing of the whole House of Commons. It would be a message to the aggressors, who would realise the feeling prevailing in a united House of Commons. It is because of that that I ask the Prime Minister to consider the appeal that we are making, in order to give that confidence to the country and to Members of Parliament to which they are entitled.

5.9 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I am one of those who are at little surprised at the Amendment and at the arguments which have been adduced in support of it. The only people who will be disappointed if it is carried will be those who voted for it.

Mr. Tinker: It is unfair to make that charge.

. Sir H. Williams: I will put it this way: I will say the majority.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in imputing motives to the Movers of the Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: I did not notice that any motives had been imputed.

Sir H. Williams: From time to time when I speak in this House I am attacked. I expect it. But I get a bit of my own back. I do not know why people should be so indignant when I say something which I know to be true, because I have ascertained it through the usual channels—my own usual channels. Therefore, I am a little surprised that people should be so indignant about something that does not matter. But there is something of constitutional importance which, I think, must be said. Parliament does not govern Britain. That is the duty of His Majesty's Ministers, who-ever they may be. I have often, when lecturing on Parliament, explained that the primary function of Parliament is to stop Ministers governing Britain. That is why we were created. It is a sheer delusion to think that we govern Britain. That is the function of Ministers, and it is a great mistake ever to do anything which diminishes Ministerial responsibility. I am very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who has had more Ministerial experience than any living person, should desire to diminish Ministerial responsibility. I listened with great care to his speech, in the course of which he complimented me on an office to which I have not been elected. That does not matter much, except that I am glad to receive his compliments on any subject, because a compliment from him is a compliment indeed. When he was interrupted he said he was not suggesting that we should sit day and night, but his argument was that we should be continuously in session from Monday to


Friday every week. If it is not that, it means nothing.
A moment before I came in, I am informed, he gave us the example of Easter, when the outrage of Albania took place. That was a 10-day Adjournment. But he is willing to consent to 21 days. I do not think he is quite up to his usual style. After all, are these right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are so anxious that we should not adjourn notable for their good attendance in the House? No one has a profounder respect for the right hon. Gentleman than I have. I regret that he does not occupy one of the high positions of State at this moment, apart from anything else because, if he did, he would not have made the speech that he has just made. But there are much more substantial reasons. I have always regarded him as one of the great outstanding personalities to whom the country is under a permanent debt of gratitude. But I do not agree with him about everything. If he is willing to consent to a 17 days' adjournment on the ground that a 10 days' adjournment had a tragic consequence, I do not quite see his logic. What is going to be the effect on the public if the Amendment is carried, and what is going to be the effect on the dictators? They will say the British people have the wind up so much that their Parliament dare not separate. My family left on Monday for their holiday and, as far as I know, they did not take their gas masks with them. I am going on Friday, I hope, to join them, and I have no intention of taking mine.
Let us assume that we have to meet on some day in August. What will happen? Some right hon. Gentlemen will make speeches of interminable length. I once referred to right hon. Gentlemen who treated the House as a place where they bow in, blow off and blow out, and they do not always honour us by listening to what we may say subsequently. So far as the Leader of Liberal party is concerned, he will be much happier in the House of Tongue than in the House of "tongues. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) will appreciate the point, but the bulk of hon. Members do not know that the House of Tongue is in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman. That is why possibly he has got the gift of

tongue, and plenty of it, when he arrives here. It is notorious that the Leader of the Liberal party is the longest speaker in the House and that he deprives a great many Private Members of their opportunity of speaking.

Sir A. Sinclair: I may tell the hon. Member straight that what he has just said is not true. I cannot deprive hon. Members of their opportunities. I only speak when I am called by Mr. Speaker.

Sir H. Williams: I am not referring to when the right hon. Gentleman is called, but when he ceases talking. Mr. Speaker can only determine when the right hon. Gentleman gets up.

Sir A. Sinclair: I determine when I get up. Mr. Speaker determines when I speak.

Sir H. Williams: Mr. Speaker determines when the right hon. Gentleman is called, but the right hon. Gentleman himself, unless he is guilty of tedious repetition, determines when he sits down. [Hon. Members: "Get on."] I notice that hon. Members opposite are telling me to get on with it. In a rather extensive experience of addressing meetings attended by those who vote for hon. Members opposite, I always notice that when I am told to get on with it, I am saying something that they do not like. Therefore, hon. Members opposite have not quite grown out of their early training. They resent criticism although they are very fond of flinging it at other people. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell),who is a fairly fierce critic, ought not to get too cross. We are approaching the holidays, when a certain spirit of good will should prevail even in his rather caustic mind. I really do not know—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite are getting rather annoyed.
If we meet on 21st August, is it the proposal that we should proceed with the uncompleted business of the Session, or is the object merely that we should come back with no agenda and have a rambling Debate on the Motion, "That this House do now adjourn"? Is it the proposal that 615 people are to be summoned here for what may be no purpose at all—a meeting without an agenda? I always thought the right hon. Member for Epping was an accomplished administrator. Has he ever yet attended


a meeting at which there was no business to be discussed when the people arrive? I wonder what sort of a reception he would get if he ever indulged in that sort of thing. I see the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) has on the agenda for 3rd October that we should discuss the Criminal Justice Bill. Which part of the family am I to believe? The right hon. Member for Epping wants to discuss the question, "That this House do now adjourn," while the hon. Member for Norwood wants to discuss something quite different. Before they decide which way they are going to vote—I suppose they are going to vote the same way—they might decide what they are voting about. If they cannot determine what they want, it is difficult for me to decide what I shall do about it. It is a good idea to have a measure of unanimity about that sort of thing.
What is behind this proposal? Is it that we should meet on 21st August? Not in the least. It arises out of the anger of certain people because they do not sit on that Front Bench. [An Hon. Member: "You are trying to get there."] No. Although I think I am much better than some who sit on the Front Bench, it does not make me cross. I do not suffer from any particular kind of malice.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Member say what he got his title for? Nobody else knows.

Sir H. Williams: Do not they? I do not know to what the hon. Member is referring.

Mr. Shinwell: You got it as a consolation prize.

Sir H. Williams: It does not worry me in the least. I speak against the Government when I think they are in the wrong and I speak for them when I think they are right. I have always been a perfectly free and independent Member, as everybody knows. When I think the Government are right and some of their critics are wrong, I see no reason why I should not attack the critics. Nobody can say that I have ever been subservient to anybody. If only hon. Members knew what the Chief Whip says sometimes to me, they would know that that is true.
What we have exhibited to-day is malice directed against the Prime Minister

because on 28th September last he rendered a great service to humanity. We should not be meeting here to-day if he had not done that. That malice continues. I think the Prime Minister was right then, and I think he is right now, and it is because I think that this Amendment is really an attack upon him that I am going to support him in the Lobby.

Mr. John Morgan: Will the hon. Member accept the fact that hon. Members are actuated by the motive that Herr Hitler characteristically uses these periods for his expeditions?

Sir H. Williams: I do not doubt that in the least, and I rejoice that His Majesty's Government have now attained a degree of preparation which will make dictators hesitate before they try on any tricks; but that does not alter one word of the speech that I have made.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: The hon. Baronet the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams)—

Sir H. Williams: It has not come to that—not baronet.

Mr. Adams: I was merely indulging in intelligent anticipation. The hon. Member for South Croydon has delivered a speech which seems to have come from a mind over which has been dropped a dark curtain. He tried to limit the events of last summer to the events of the last week or fortnight of September. How, in logic, can he defend the political proposition that we have recently done for Colonel Beck what we declined to do a year ago for Dr. Benes? The hon. Member made an astonishingly clever speech in which he advanced the constitutional theory, which I had never heard before, that the House of Commons should never do anything to diminish Ministerial responsibility. Where would such an argument conceivably end? It would mean that we should never criticise the Executive.

Sir H. Williams: No. There must be some misunderstanding. Ministers are responsible for the administration of their Department, and if at any time we think they are not competent we are entitled to say so; but the responsibility is theirs, and theirs alone.

Mr. Adams: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for anticipating the next


stage of my argument. I was about to say that this House is responsible for granting or withholding from the Executive their power to govern the country. I must ask the patience of the House for about 10 minutes while I state briefly the misgiving that I feel about the Prime Minister's Motion to-day. In his speech the Prime Minister asked whether the House need have any fear that the Government would fail to exercise their powers of calling the House together. He said that the Executive would call the House together for any fresh measures the Executive had in mind, or to approve any measures which they had taken. I would submit this simple proposition, that when this country has been bound by the Executive by any fresh undertaking or committed to any new treaty, there is nothing left for us to do but to protest, if we disagree with what has been done. There was nothing else that was possible for those who disagreed with the policy which led up to the Munich Agreement at the end of September but to protest, and for those who approved, to ratify it. This House cannot undo what has already been done. Unless we are to condemn ourselves as a useless body we must control the event as far as we can, and mould the future. That seems to me to be the proper function of Parliament. A little time ago in the country, not in another place, a very presumptuous Peer suggested the shutting up of the House of Commons for a period of months. If that suggestion were not so pitiably stupid I should almost stigmatise it as seditious, and as disloyal to the free and representative spirit of Britain as would be an insult to the Royal Family. I hope these observations will reach the eye and ear of Lord Bayford.
I do not often have occasion to offer gratitude to the usual channels, and I trust that those on the Front Bench who represent the usual channels will give me their attention, because I am going to offer to them my thanksgiving that this vote to-day has not been made the occasion of a three-line Whip. Therefore, the House will assume that it is not a question of major confidence, although the hon. Member for South Croydon did try to make it a matter of confidence. He based his argument upon the ground of confidence. I have no doubt that other hon. Members—I exempt the Prime

Minister from this statement—will argue it as a matter of confidence in His Majesty's Government that we should support the Prime Minister's Motion. I would suggest that there is no logical limit to such a plea. It could be advanced as a question of confidence that we should vote in favour of the permanent suspension of Parliament, I submit to hon. Members in all parts of the House that the doctrine of official infallibility has no place in the theory of our Constitution. Any one who fails to grasp that proposition does not understand the spirit of our free democracy.
This is not a foreign affairs Debate and I shall take the greatest possible care to be relevant in my next sentence. Two days ago I paid to the Prime Minister a very sincere tribute on his strength of character. If my hon. Friends in my own party wish me to repeat that tribute, I will readily do so, wholeheartedly. But no one will deny that to-night we may be standing upon the edge of war, and the way to prevent war, as I said in other words last Monday, is to convince Hitler of our will and our intention to resist. I am bound to say that I should be less apprehensive about Hitler's state of mind if our Government—the Government which is now asking for exclusive control for the next two or three months over the affairs of this country and the Commonwealth of which this country is the pivot—included some of those men whom Dr. Goebbels and Herr Hitler describe as "war mongers." That epithet is one of their most trite methods of weakening our will in Great Britain and of fostering the very pacifism which may destroy the British Empire.
That reconstruction of the Government, which is widely desired throughout the country, without distinction of party, has not been carried out. It is true that the power of resistance of His Majesty's Government during the next two or three months, when this House will be up, has been lately recruited by the elevation of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) and the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh). To those two hon. Members I offer my unqualified and unenvious congratulations. I do not know how Hitler has been impressed by that reconstruction of our Government. The interventions in foreign affairs by the hon. Member for Huddersfield have been distinguished by insistence upon Article 19


of the Covenant. As for the hon. Member for Dundee, she won for herself undying renown and official gratitude in the Perth and Kinross by-election before she became a member of this reconstituted Government, which is to control our affairs for the next two or three months while the House is up, by her eloquent description of the horrors of modern warfare. I will only say this—that this spirit may have defeated a duchess but it has not won, nor will it keep a great Empire. This reconstruction has not come about so we are asking that the Government should do the next best thing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member cannot deal with the reconstruction of the Government.

Mr. Adams: Very well, Sir, I will now reconstruct my speech. As this reconstruction has not come about we must do the next best thing in the very anxious circumstances by which this Island is now surrounded, and that is to keep Parliament in active being. In the few moments still left to me may I examine the argument which was used by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker)—that we need a holiday. Of course, all of us want a holiday but I suggest that not all of us need one, which is a very different thing. Our duties in this House are exacting but they are not exhausting. As perhaps one of the least tranquil and less easily appeased of the Members of the House, I recognise the physical disadvantages and inconveniences of the Palace of Westminster if our sojourn here is prolonged continuously for months. We have to suffer late nights and an obstinately close atmosphere, perpetual but friendly collisions with the "usual channels," food which seems strangely bereft of taste or freshness, and very often spend weeks in a futile attempt to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, but that is the very worst I suggest that can be said about the immense and indescribable privilege which all of us enjoy of serving in the first Assembly of the world, where on the whole reason and compromise prevail—and I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to reach a compromise with those of us who do not want to separate for two months—and where friendliness so often softens the bitterest partisan asperities
.
To-night Parliament is being invited to suspend completely its animation for two

months, which the blindest and most deaf of individuals knows beyond question are going to be the two most critical months for a quarter of a century. I ask my hon. Friends to recall, casting aside all matters of Parliamentary and partisan repartee, that when this House was up Hitler marched on to Munich, where the door was opened to him to Prague, and that when
this House was up Mussolini raped Albania. If some of us need a rest I suggest that the younger men at least might take some of the responsibility of keeping Parliament together. I really hope the House will take the suggestion seriously. I see no excuse at this critical moment in our history for men under 50 going for a long holiday of two months. To-day we are not at peace—the Prime Minister has told us that. At any moment this war of nerves, of which the dictator countries are boasting, may develop into a war of guns. Between 1914 and 1918 there was no holiday of two months for fit men. They did their duty during those years continuously, and to-night, thanks to them, we are free. To-day, on all sides the men of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force are moving to their war stations and I hope that fact is getting home to the rulers of Germany. I cannot see in what manner of principle our duty differs from theirs. I suggest to the House that to sustain Britain's pledged word and safeguard our strategic security this House ought to stand to its post.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I do not propose to keep the House for more than a few moments because most of the arguments which can be used for and against the Motion have already been heard. It is a very strange proceeding on the part of the Government to ask the House of Commons to adjourn for two months at the very moment when industry throughout Great Britain is being put on a war basis. If the miners and steel workers and people engaged in all our industrial works took the same frivolous view of the international situation they would say that if Parliament is entitled to have two months' holiday now there can be no reasonable ground for them to work overtime in the factories. It is strange, indeed, that the House of Commons should be asked to arrive at this decision at a time when we are exhorting the people throughout the country to make unpre-


edented efforts to put our defences in order.
Let me deal with the argument which is used by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). The foreign policy which the Government are adopting has been taken from this side of the House. It is a foreign policy to which hon. Members opposite were fundamentally opposed, but which they have now adopted from us. What is the suggestion? It is that the House of Commons should be dispersed for two months, and that the conduct of the country should be under the control of the Government, over whom hon. Members opposite have the most control. What they are really saying is that the people who should run the country for the next two months are the Conservative party. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to represent the argument in terms that it is the Government—but it is their Government. They are telling the country that for two months, by common consent the two most critical months in the history of Britain, Great Britain should be governed by the Conservative party.

Sir H. Williams: Does the hon. Member remember the Adjournment of Parliament in August, 1931, on the eve of one of the greatest financial crises? Were any steps taken then for Parliament to resume on 21st August?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is really not doing himself justice. First of all, there was no crisis in 1931. At the time of the Adjournment of Parliament in 1931 there was no crisis; in fact, if there was a crisis then such as the hon. Member suggests, disastrous to the country, his party was so unpatriotic as to leave the conduct of affairs in the hands of those they criticised and did not support. Did they make any attempt in 1931 to keep Parliament sitting? Of course they did not. The answer is that they did not think there was a crisis, or if they thought there was that they would rather have the crisis than prevent it.

Mr. H. Strauss: When the hon. Member says that the country is to be governed for the next two months by the Conservative party, does he not really mean by His Majesty's Ministers?

Mr. Bevan: I mean no such thing. His Majesty's Government derive their power

from the majority of the House of Commons, and the majority of the House of Commons is composed of the Conservative party. It is, in fact, a Conservative party Government. If that is the actual position—and I do not think hon. Members in any part of the House will seriously deny it—then members of the Conservative party in this House dare to take to themselves the right to decide upon the issues of peace and war in the course of the next two months. They think that they can mobilise the full spiritual and material power of the country by what will be only a party decision. If it be that the events of the next few months will lead this country into war against the Totalitarian States, ought not that decision to be made by the united representatives of the people?
The argument has been used more than once that it is not the last act that matters but the slow drift of a number of executive actions, of which the last action is merely the inevitable consequence. It is to control the development of policy that we want the House to meet. Surely the Conservative party are not so bovine as to put party loyalty before national interests and resist the proposal we make. If we are engaged on a national policy the House of Commons should be the national and united instrument for carrying it out. I hope that the Prime Minister will not be obstinate. Strength does not consist of being obstinate about small matters, and I hope he will decide to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood).
There is one other consideration which I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind. Some of us represent industrial constituencies. It is very important to realise that the division of representation in this House follows very largely territorial areas. It would not be so important if when you looked at an electoral map of England you found that the supporters of the Government and the supporters of the Opposition were peppered right through the country, but, in point of fact, there are large blocks of Great Britain represented in this House by Members of the Opposition, and areas, very many of them sparsely populated, which are represented by members of the Government.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Birmingham.

Mr. Bevan: It will not be represented next time. At any rate, I give hon. Members the point that they could not have a majority in this House unless they had large industrial blocks behind them, but it docs not invalidate my argument. There are the areas of South Wales, Durham and Yorkshire and industrial Scotland, and other big patches of Britain, in which there is no supporter of the Government in this House. If we seriously want to mobilise the spiritual and material resources of Great Britain can you safely deprive these areas of any representative during these critical months? Can you safely come to a decision which will have the effect of disfranchising these areas in such an important matter as the issue of peace or war?
It seems to me that hon. Members opposite are looking at the matter very frivolously. The suggestion is that the boys in our pits, steelworks, and factories should be ready to give their lives for democracy, the expression of which is this institution, but that this institution should be dispersed for two months. It is fantastic. If the House declares that its existence is so unimportant as virtually to leave issues of life and death in the hands of the Prime Minister, how can you expect people to regard the House so seriously that they are prepared to lay down their lives to defend it? It seems to me that hon. Members opposite are placing narrow party considerations in front of the vital interests of the country. If the Prime Minister seriously intends to carry out the policy to which he has pledged himself, if he believes that behind that policy it is necessary to arm himself with the consolidated forces of Great Britain, he should provide all the people of the country with an opportunity of identifying themselves with that policy, so that a decision, when taken, can represent the united voice of Great Britain, and not be a party decision arrived at by people in many of whom the country has no confidence.

5.47 P.m.

Mr. Raikes: My hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) was good enough to thank the Prime Minister because there was no three-line Whip this afternoon. I confess that I was a little bit surprised to hear the hon. Member do that, because I always thought that as

a matter of principle he voted against the Government on a three-line Whip, but supported the Government on every other occasion. Be that as it may, it is true to say that the Amendment is a Motion of no confidence in the Government, whether there be a three-line Whip or not. What does it amount to? Surely, it amounts to this, that, unless the House is prepared to agree to trust the judgment of the Prime Minister to call Parliament together at the proper time, if such a time should arrive, the House does not trust the judgment of the Prime Minister, and if it does not, then that is a Vote of Censure on the Prime Minister, and he goes.

Mr. Bevan: May I ask the hon. Member a question? How can I go to my constituents and suggest to them that they should be prepared to allow their life or death to rest with the judgment of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Raikes: I can give a very simple answer to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). He need only show his constituents the speeches made by Members of his own Front Bench. Those speeches always amount to this, that you cannot trust the Prime Minister because he may let down some foreign country and thereby prevent the people of this country from going to war. [Hon. Members: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members may say "Nonsense," but time after time we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench criticisms of the Prime Minister on this ground—this man went to Munich, this man betrayed Czecho-Slovakia, this man cannot be trusted because he will betray our allies everywhere in Europe. Therefore, the danger, as far as it is a danger, from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, is that if we trust the Prime Minister, it may well be that there may not be war, and some of them would like war. [Interruption.] I am not the slightest bit ashamed of myself, and I shall not be any more ashamed of myself because hon. Members do not care for the views I express. Beyond that, I appreciate that hon. Members opposite are justified in criticising the Prime Minister for making this a matter of censure, as it is; but when it comes to hon. Members on the Government side, I am a little bit troubled.
For instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who is no longer in his place, expressed many noble sentiments earlier in the afternoon. He asked whether it was an accident that the House was about to rise at the period of greatest danger that this country had ever known. Is it an accident that certain right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in the Conservative party never seem to come to the House except on occasions when they can make some criticism of the Government? Is it an accident that many of those who seem to be most anxious to bring the House back in August or September are more conspicuous for their absence than they are for their presence at ordinary times and when ordinary Debates are taking place in the House? There are a good many back-bench Members who stay on in the House all through the Session, and it does seem a little hard that those who are most anxious to bring the Session into operation again are those who, when the House is in Session, are so often absent. Before coming to the House this afternoon, I looked at the Division Lobby records for this Session. [Interruption.] The hon. Member wishes to know my Division record. It has always been well over 50 per cent., and it has generally averaged about 64 per cent. I can, at any rate, say that I have always been in the Division records, whereas the right hon. Member for Epping is not even at the bottom of the list in the Division records for this Session. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who so eloquently supported the right hon. Member for Epping, is not in the Division records. The hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken), the other of the heavenly twins who sit at the right hon. Gentleman's feet, has not been in the Division records.

Mr. Bracken: As the hon. Member has referred to me as a heavenly twin, may I point out to him that there are many occasions when, unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and I could not conscientiously support the Government?

Mr. Raikes: The hon. Member for North Paddington suggests that the reason under 60 Divisions are shown between November and Whitsun for himself,

the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, and the right hon. Member for Epping, is that of the 154 possible Divisions, on 96 occasions they were unable to support the Government. I wonder why it is that they can still—

Mr. Bevan: Does the hon. Member seriously suggest to the House that the right hon. Member for Epping did not vote for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule always?

Mr. Raikes: I would not say that. It is interesting to note that there have been many other occasions when the right hon. Gentleman might have voted; but I think I can now leave that matter. The real point I want to make is that the argument from the Conservative benches in favour of the House returning in August or September might have been stronger if the case had originally been put by some right hon. or hon. Members of that party who at least could show that they had regularly attended at the House in the course of the past Session.

Mr. V. Adams: Is my hon. Friend aware that my Division record is at least as good as, if not far better than, his?

Mr. Raikes: I can assure ray hon. Friend that his Division record is an extremely good one, and it is for that reason that I did not name him among the hon. Members. I would also remind him that one swallow does not make a summer, and that he is rather a swallow in this respect. In conclusion, I submit that the suggestion that some definite date for the reassembly of Parliament should be fixed, far from alarming the German Fuhrer, or any other dictator abroad, would simply mark a very nice milestone for any step they wanted to take in Europe to be taken at some period just after the House had risen, after meeting automatically during the Recess. It is laid down, and it has been stated by the Prime Minister, that, in the event of any real crisis arising, the House must be gathered together, as last year the House was gathered together before Munich—[An Hon. Member: "After Berchtesgaden."] I have a certain recollection of that Munich Debate. There was not a horribly hostile House, although little voices of discord were very quickly heard after Munich was over and the danger of war had passed away.

5.57 p.m..

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: I do not intend to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes), who has taken some skeletons out of the Division records cupboard, but I think I may say to him that this is a House of Commons question and not a party question, and I think it is our duty to examine it as Members of Parliament, and not as members of parties. I would say to the hon. Member for South-East Essex, and also to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), that those of us who have certain apprehensions about this Motion in no way desire to attack or question the good faith of the Prime Minister. I think that the whole House believes that when the Prime Minister gives a pledge, no man could be more punctilious than he is in carrying it out. I would remind the hon. Member for South-East Essex that the Prime Minister himself rather hinted that he would listen to suggestions on this Motion, and that the Patronage Secretary has not even made it a matter for a three-line Whip. I hope that is not the Patronage Secretary's swansong, but we thank him for allowing us that latitude.
I hope that the Prime Minister will realise that some of us have some apprehensions. We are going away at a time of great European crisis. Let nobody imagine that things are easier, and that we go away in a happy and irresponsible state; but I cannot help feeling that in some parts of the country there will be regret that at this moment of international crisis Parliament should more or less take a holiday. We who sit in the House know that many Members will not be taking holidays, but will be doing various sorts of work of national importance; but the fact remains that to the nation as a whole the House will seem to be taking a holiday. The only Minister who I hope will not take a holiday, but will remain in the House, is the Secretary of State for Air; I think he will be safer in the House than on his duties. I am sure the House was delighted to see him in his place this afternoon.
The reason I have some apprehensions about this Motion is that it may, in fact, make the task of the Prime Minister a little more difficult. Every foreigner of distinction whom one meets emphasises

the importance that this country should make its intentions clear, and that the German leader should know that we are in earnest. Therefore we welcome the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. But I cannot help thinking that when people in Germany and other countries see that Parliament is about to adjourn as usual, they may feel that, after all, this country does not mean business. We in this House know the great distinction which exists between the Executive and the Legislature here, but I am not sure that that distinction is always apparent to people abroad. For that reason, I fear that the task of the Prime Minister may be made more difficult. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has pointed out that if Parliament is specially called together it will demonstrate to the world that there is great European tension. I do not see how under the present Motion we get over that difficulty. I think it will be a very difficult task for the Prime Minister to decide when it is necessary to call Parliament together, when the mere fact of doing so will show to the world that the international situation is dangerous.
I would prefer that we should decide to meet occasionally, because the automatic calling together of Parliament under such an arrangement would not be taken, necessarily, as calling attention to the fact that there was danger in Europe. I would like to see a compromise. I would like to see an arrangement made for the House of Commons to meet once a month, the Government having power not to call the House together on those occasions unless they so desired. In other words, if the tension eased the Prime Minister could decide not to call the House together. I think that would be the best way out of the difficulty, but the Prime Minister has decided otherwise. I wonder if I might put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that if there is any alteration in Government policy the Prime Minister will call the House together. Would it be possible for him to give an assurance that he will call the House together if there is any alteration in the foreign situation? The alteration need not necessarily be for the worse. There might be a great easing in the situation. I think it would be helpful if the Prime Minister could give an assurance that on any


alteration in the foreign situation, meaning, of course, a fairly serious alteration, he will call the House together. That would enable him to get out of the embarrassment of having to call the House together in circumstances in which to do so would put the whole world on tenterhooks. If it was understood that the House would be called together on a fundamental alteration in the circumstances, a great many of the fears which are felt in the country would be relieved and the Prime Minister's task made less difficult. Those of us who have apprehensions on this subject realise that the Prime Minister must be the best judge of the situation. I hope that he will realise that the apprehensions which we feel are sincere and that he will go some way to meet them.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I wish to show the Prime Minister how back-bench Members on this side view this question. In an experience of this House of 10 years or more, I have found that the Prime Minister as a rule does not rely too much on what is said from the Front Opposition Bench, but on some occasions he does pay some attention to what is said from the back benches on this side. We realise that it is largely his responsibility to decide when the House shall have a Recess, and when it shall reassemble. I agree that that is a Government responsibility at all times. I do not agree that any number of people outside the Government should have the power to dictate when the House should reassemble. As I say, that is the Government's responsibility and I hope the Government will accept that responsibility. But there is a responsibility on the Opposition and on all Members of the House to bring some pressure to bear on the Government when they consider that the date selected for reassembly is too far ahead.
We are living in unusual times. We all fear the possibility of certain events happening in the next two months. The question is, should we leave it to the Prime Minister to wait for those events to happen and then to call Parliament together, or should we now decide to shorten the period of the Recess. It is less likely that certain things will happen in three weeks time, than that they will

happen in two months time. Our suggestion is that, in the unusual circumstances, it would be better to meet in three weeks time. I am not concerned as to the Division records of hon. Members on any side of the House. I have always known that the Division records of supporters of the Government is a poor one. In fact, the hon. Member who raised the question has a record of 87 out of a possible 154, which is not too good. But I think those who have good records are entitled to speak on this issue.
The Prime Minister has in any case decided to shorten the Recess. He is bringing us back about three weeks earlier than usual to do certain business. I should prefer him to work it the other way round; to continue in Session now and get through the business which he proposes to take in October. I would prefer to sit during the remainder of August in order to transact the business which has been announced for October. During that period we should get to know more about the Russian situation. Surely during the next three weeks we shall be getting nearer to a settlement, if a settlement is ever to be reached. I realise that once the Prime Minister feels that a Vote of Censure or of distrust in him is being put forward, he will stand on his honour and put his followers on their honour also. But I want the right hon. Gentleman to see that there is a way out of the difficulty. We are concerned—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thinks we are too much concerned—with the question of an agreement with Russia. We think it a vital factor in the present situation. If the Prime Minister wants to complete certain business why should he not, instead of putting it off until October, say "The circumstances in the international field are such that I must ask Parliament to sit throughout August." I suppose that some of those who are, to-day, asking for an earlier re-assembly of Parliament might object to that proposal, but I think the Prime Minister could show the advantage of getting through that business now. In the meantime the international situation might have eased.
I do not altogether agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), although he produced instances to support his view, that the dictators have taken certain action in the past, just because Parliament has not


been in session. I have not been impressed by the argument that it is when Parliament is not sitting that these things are done. I say that the dictators take these actions when it suits them, and at the time when they are ready. I think they would take such action, if the time and circumstances suited them, even if Parliament were in session. That is my personal view. But I think that Parliament ought to be in session at a time like the present. I have a heavy record of personal attendances in this House and I am ready for a rest, but in present circumstances I consider that the shorter the Recess is, the better. I do not see any objection to coming here, say, on 20th August even if it is only for the purpose of being told by the Prime Minister that the situation has not changed at all. I do not regard that possibility as in any way objectionable but I fear the possibility of what may happen during a two months' recess and I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the whole position. Why should we not continue to sit now and do the business which has been put down for October? During that time the atmosphere may clear and we may be able to review the whole foreign situation in altered conditions.

6.10 p.m.

Sir William Davison: I would like the House to come back to the Motion on the Paper which raises a very simple question. We are not concerned with the Division records of hon. Members, or other irrelevant matters which have been brought into the discussion. It has been said that Parliament's action would be misunderstood abroad if we went on holiday at a time when the European situation is tense. Why is Parliament proposing to go on a holiday, or rather to adjourn? The reason is because Parliament has dealt with all the urgent matters which required to be dealt with, in order to put the country into a state of preparedness, if unfortunately we should have to go to war. Parliament has done its work. It has prepared the country, in so far as it could by legislation prepare the country, for what will have to be done should the great emergency arise. Therefore, it is far better for Members, in accordance with our practice for years past—Parliament having discharged its functions and

done its duty in passing the necessary legislation—to go to their constituencies and explain to their constituents the meaning of the various Measures which have been passed and what is necessary to bring those measures to fruition.

Mr. Dingle Foot: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously putting before the House the proposition that the only function of the House is to pass legislation? Is it not an even more important function to control the Executive?

Sir W. Davison: Parliament has had the policy of the Executive of the Government—I assume the hon. Member means in foreign affairs—before it again and again. We have repeatedly and meticulously discussed the Government's foreign policy and on each occasion, by an overwhelming majority the House has approved the policy of the Government and the policy which the Government will adopt in any future emergency.

Mr. Foot: Any policy?

Sir W. Davison: Further, the Prime Minister has given the pledge, which hon. Members opposite have accepted, that if that policy is substantially altered in the future for any reason, Parliament will at once be summoned. The hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) said he thought the House would agree to the proposal that we should arrange to meet once a month but that the Prime Minister should have the power, if necessary, to cancel any particular sitting, saying that in his opinion there was nothing very urgent calling for Parliament's attention and therefore Parliament would not meet on that occasion. But what is the difference between this and the Motion on the Paper? Moreover, I think we may be sure that our friend Dr. Goebbels and his propaganda ministry would always see to it that something pretty urgent was arranged for, so that Parliament might be summoned. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was speaking I interrupted him to point out that his argument was in effect: "Why should we adjourn at all?" We all know that Herr Hitler does not wait for three weeks or even for two weeks before taking action when he decides upon a coup. We all remember that the Albanian crisis arose when Parliament


had been adjourned for ten days only.
Therefore, you will not secure that Parliament shall be able to deal with any emergency by saying that it should come back in three weeks' time. It would mean that Parliament would have to continue in Session permanently for the present, although the right hon. Member for Epping said he would not expect Parliament to go on sitting night and day. His contention was quite illogical. In my opinion, to adopt the Amendment of the Opposition would be simply playing into the hands of the dictators and making them think that we really are looking and listening with tremulous feelings for every word that they may say. The thing for this country to do is to go about our own business in our own way. Parliament has by its legislation given us the power to put our defences in order. Let us go about our business in our own way and stop listening to these stupid gibes and dictatorial mandates and threats from over the water. We need not concern ourselves with them. We are now well prepared, well able, with the aid of our Dominions and of our Allies, to give a good account of ourselves, and woe to the foreign Powers and their selfish machinations if they attack us.
Let us not go jittering about and saying we must be called back if Dr. Goebbels makes a speech, or holds out another threat, or says he is going to send so many big guns into Danzig, or Italy makes some movement towards Yugoslavia. Let us keep calm. Let this House adjourn in the ordinary way. Let us pass the Motion that the Prime Minister has moved that, having done our duty, we may now go to our constituents, explain what we have done, and ask them to help the country in every way they can, both in Civil Defence and in military training, relying on the pledge given in the Motion and the separate pledge given by the Prime Minister that if anything serious and unforeseen emerges, Parliament will be summoned to deal with it. Meanwhile, we trust the Government and the Prime Minister, who, thank God, is in charge of our affairs, to do the right thing.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Richard Law: My hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) used an argument towards the

end of his speech which I must confess I did not quite follow. He said that to call Parliament together again some time during the next two months would be a surrender to Herr Hitler and a surrender to panic. If he believes that, surely he must equally believe that those other measures that have been taken by the Government, such as the calling-up of the Naval Reserve, the introduction of conscription, and so on, have been a surrender to panic and to the jitters. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend, because he is, if I may say so, the first private Member who has supported the Motion who has, in my judgment, put forward arguments that have been worthy of the occasion and have not been frivolous. I very much regret the tone of the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes). This matter which we are discussing is a matter of vital importance, and both my hon. Friends to whom I have just referred brought to the discussion of this question, or so ii seemed to me, a frivolity that the subject did not warrant, and an imputation of unworthy motives which certainly I do not like to hear in this House.
I know there have been rumours in the Press and whispers in the Lobby that anyone who wants in any way to limit the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in regard to this matter of the summoning of Parliament is, by that very fact, plotting against the Prime Minister and trying to humiliate, embarrass, and hamper him in his activities. The hon. Member for South Croydon went so far as to say that this desire to summon Parliament earlier was due entirely to people who were dissatisfied with the Munich Agreement of last September. I am one of those who did not agree that the Munich Agreement was a good agreement, and I regretted it, but to say that I and others who thought as I did on that question did so for any other reason than that we thought it was, although in the circumstances perhaps the best that could be obtained, a bad agreement, is not fair. I think it monstrous to cast aspersions on Members of this House in that kind of way. I think the suggestion that the desire to recall Parliament is an act of lack of confidence in the Prime Minister is an aspersion not only upon us as individuals, but upon


this House in its corporate capacity, because, after all, it does imply the hypothesis that there is some fundamental antagonism between the Prime Minister and the House of Commons, and that if the House of Commons is here at a time of crisis, the Prime Minister will be hampered and hindered in the work which he is trying to do. I am sure that that is a theory of the Constitution which no Member of this House, whether on the Treasury Bench, the Front Opposition Bench or anywhere else, would accept for a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon gave us a brief lecture on constitutional history. He told us that it was the business of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to govern, and that it was not the business of the House of Commons to govern; and that is true, broadly speaking. The House of Commons is the Legislature, and the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are the Executive, but surely the Legislature, which has no right, I admit, to control the day-today actions of the Executive, has a definite right, and indeed a definite duty, to criticise the Executive. I do not mean to criticise factiously, and I am sure that the Government would be' prepared to admit that the criticism which they have had from the House of Commons in these matters has not been altogether factious and unworthy, because otherwise I do not think they would have adopted so many of the suggestions which have been made by private Members in the Debates in this House. But I do feel that we, as Members of Parliament, have a definite duty to criticise the Executive and to keep it, so to speak, up to the mark, and the more dangerous and the more critical the times, the greater and the more vital our duty becomes.
I was very glad that the Prime Minister, when he moved the Motion, did not attribute any motives at all to those who do not see eye to eye with him upon this matter, and I am sure he would not do so. The Prime Minister used an argument which seemed to command the general assent of perhaps a majority in the House, but I am not sure that it was a very good argument. He said he thought the burden of responsibility or of choice in this matter should rest with the Government, and with the Government alone. I wonder whether that is really true. If there was any question of policy,

it would be true, because the House of Commons has not got any day-to-day control over policy. But it is not a question of policy. It is a question of the right of private Members and the duty which we as private Members owe to our constituents whom we try to represent in this House, and I am not at all sure that the Prime Minister and the Government are the best judges of what that duty may be. If I may say so, without any offensive intent, I think they are very likely to be fallible in that regard, for, after all, the Executive only acts as it thinks rightly. The Executive never consciously and deliberately does an unwise or an evil or a bad action. At the same time, the Executive must, being composed of human beings, feel that the meeting of Parliament imposes upon it a strain and a burden from which it is free when Parliament is not sitting. I think there must always be a predisposition in the mind of the Government to seek freedom to do what they believe to be right and to try and avoid shouldering burdens which they honestly consider to be unnecessary. I believe that the House of Commons, on a point of this kind which is not concerned with policy, but which does concern our relations as private Members with our own constituents, would be a better judge even than the Prime Minister and the Government.
More than one hon. Member has said that he is glad that there is not a three-line whip on this matter to-day. I wish for myself that it could be a free vote, and if such a vote went against the Motion, it would not imply, in my view, any lack of confidence in the Prime Minister or any rebuff to the Government. It would only give to those of us who feel as I do the opportunity of fulfilling what we conceive to be our duty to our constituents. These are very serious times. We have done in this Parliament, in this Session, quite unprecedented things; we have brought in conscription and so on. If we believe the times are serious, as they are, if we believe that this is a crisis not only in this Session, not only in this Parliament, but in the whole history of the British Empire, then I think our constituents have a right to expect that we should at any rate hold ourselves available for the recall of Parliament at an earlier date than that proposed in the Motion.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: Speeches like those to which we have just listened are sufficient evidence that the statements made by the hon. Members for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and South—EastEssex (Mr. Raikes) are entirely unwarranted. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Croydon that we were not genuine and sincere in putting forward this Amendment has been answered by the last speaker, and as to the statement made by the hon. Member for South-East Essex, that some hon. Members would like a war, I cannot conceive of anything more mischievous and more of an insult to the Members to whom those remarks were addressed than that statement. Surely the House can see that the attitude of the Opposition to Government legislation, what we might term war legislation, has been no unwarrantable or obstructive attitude, like that taken up by the Members of the Conservative party immediately before the last War broke out. We could have brought forward evidence of that when we were discussing the Prevention of Violence Bill, but we refrained from doing so. We could have quoted the statements of Conservative Members on that critical occasion immediately before the last War. Surely our attitude is evidence that we do not want to stand in the way of anything the Government wish to do which will contribute to the safety of this country.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: I happened to be a Member of this House at that time. May I assure the hon. Member that from the very moment there was any possibility of this country being involved in a Continental war all in the House sank their individual opinions and gave absolute support to Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister of the day.

Mr. Bellenger: I armed myself with quotations from prominent members of the Conservative party right up to the very day—almost up to the very day—war was declared and if I had thought it appropriate to bring them out when we were discussing the Prevention of Violence Bill they would, I think, have been convincing evidence of the Conservative party's obstructive tactics against the Liberal Government in those days when events were almost as serious as they are now. The hon. and gallant Member says that as soon as it was realised by all

parties in the House, immediately before the last War, that there was a state of crisis, of danger to this country, they all sank their differences. Is not history repeating itself to-day? Can any hon. Member deny that we on this side of the House have been willing to sink our differences, very vital differences, with the Government? Take one case alone, the introduction of conscription. Some of us felt so deeply on that issue that we even abstained from going into the Lobby against the Government. Why? Because we can realise just as much as hon. Members opposite the gravity of the situation that faces this country.
It could be argued, I admit, that the Amendment we have moved could be construed as a Vote of Censure against the Government. It is no secret from the Prime Minister that even now we do disagree with him fundamentally on some of his actions, but the Government themselves, as I understand, by not issuing a three-line Whip to their supporters have not taken it as a vote of censure, and we do not intend it as such. All we are asking is that the House should agree not to depart for so long a period in these grave times. What would be the position if events did occur in the manner outlined by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) this afternoon? It is not an impossible picture that he has painted. So many of the pictures he has given to the House have been very objective in their perspective, so many of the events he has forecast have come true. Why should it be levelled against him or against us that because we remind the Government that there have been occasions when his warnings have come true—and our warnings also—that we are simply criticising the Prime Minister in his personal capacity? We are not doing anything of the kind.
I do not want to take up time by bringing forward arguments, because I think the soundest arguments have already been stated, but I should like to make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, an appeal of sentiment. He has stated on more than one occasion that he is not an unreasonable man—many of us think he is an obstinate man on occasions—and is it not possible to appeal to his better nature. The right hon. Gentleman knows that events are moving at a rapid pace and may culminate in a situation in which he will have to come


down to this House and ask the whole of this House, the Opposition included, for a vote of confidence and for supplies to carry on a war against our enemies. He knows that is a possibility. It is no good our sticking our heads in the sand, it is a possibility. When he does that he will expect support from us, he will expect unity. Is it not possible then, before that occasion arises, that he should concede to us this very small point we are asking, which is that we should be taken into the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman, be given the true picture—not be left to gather our information from the Press and from rumours which the right hon. Gentleman has so often decried, but allowed to get our information from the only source which can give it and that is the Prime Minister and the Government itself. Why cannot he agree to that small point? If the right hon. Gentleman, in the serious circumstances which face this country, is going to ask for true unity, and expect it from us who disagree with many points of his policy, then surely he must give us some foundation for belief in him and his policy. He has been good enough to say that he gives the House an assurance that if the Government are contemplating a change in that policy, he will call the House together. I suggest that those words are very ominous. I thought that the Government had defined their policy and were not going to move from it by one iota. Why should it be thought necessary to say that the House may be called together to consider a change in the policy which has been defined by the Government in the past.

Sir W. Davison: The Prime Minister was asked a question.

Mr. Bellenger: If the Government are not going to change the policy which they have defined it will not be necessary to call the House together to consider such a change.

The Prime Minister: Will the hon. Member reflect that if that is his response to my acceding to the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, it is not very encouraging to me to accede to the request made by him?

Mr. Bellenger: If anything I have said is likely to affect any change of mind that may have come over the right hon. Gentleman in response to the request

made from many quarters of the House, I withdraw those remarks. Perhaps they arose from the fact that I cannot even at this late stage entirely dissociate myself from suspicion of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude. The right hon. Gentleman must give me this credit, that I am frank in my expression of my opinions. I believe that the definition of the policy which the Government have laid down is a satisfactory definition, but what I still have a doubt about in my own mind is this, that the Government may not take such an explicit view of what those pledges mean if the tactics which may be used by Herr Hitler in the future may lead them to bring pressure to bear upon certain other countries so that the pledges which the Government have given in the past can be adjusted. I would only suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that just as we have a suspicion of him and his Government he has the same of us. We are all of us trying to live down suspicion. We are about to disperse, and all I ask him is this: Even if he does not believe in the point of view which I have put forward, at any rate that expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was certainly moderate in tone, and is worthy of some better response than the statement that the Prime Minister cannot agree to the Amendment.

6.38 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: If I intervene in this Debate with a few sentences it is because I have a point of view which I hold rather strongly. I intervene as a profound, unqualified supporter of the policy of the Prime Minister, and I believe that he will go down to history, when these days are seen in correct perspective, as a man who brought this country and this Empire lasting good. If I thought that a single word I said tonight in the remotest degree showed the slightest lack of confidence in the Prime Minister I would cut out my tongue before I spoke it. But as we listened to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition my mind went clearly and irrevocably in one direction. The scene he depicted in Europe is one we can all accept, and, accepting that scene, the only course for this House is to remain in continuous session until these anxious days are past. If a Motion to that effect had been put before the House it would


have had my unqualified support and if I commend to the Prime Minister most respectfully the Amendment moved by the Opposition it is not because I believe it is the best thing but is the second best thing in the emergency with which we are confronted.
As has been said over and over again in this Debate by men who speak with unqualified authority and with great knowledge, the emergency which may come before us in the weeks immediately ahead is not an emergency of a day. It may be the emergency of an hour; it may be the emergency of moments. And if that emergency does arise, as it may arise at any minute—everyone who thinks can see the possibility—it does seem to me that the Prime Minister will require consultation with the House and the support of this House in the national policy which he is to pursue. It is said that the House can be called together in days or even a day, but to my mind that will not suffice in the position we have to face now. My own ideas favour continuing the Session of this House, but I venture to put it to the Prime Minister that if we cannot have that ought we not to accept the second best thing, which would avoid the disturbance, the anxiety and the perplexities which may be caused by the sudden calling of Parliament, when it may even be too late, and will secure that united authority which we want the Government to have if the emergency arises.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I intervene in this Debate because I find that I cannot quite agree with any of the speeches which have been made. The speech with which I found myself most nearly in agreement was that of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) in that while he was not in favour of any particular Amendment on the Paper, neither was he entirely happy about the Motion. In my few observations I hope to make a suggestion which would make me happy in support of the Motion, something which I think the Prime Minister might say when he speaks later in the Debate. I should like to dissociate myself at once from the remarks, which I cannot think were worthy of him, which were made by the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes). Really this is a serious occasion, and to think that it is any answer to the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)

to talk about his Division record seems to me quite fantastic. I have not been a follower, and I am not a follower, of the right hon. Member for Epping, but he has certainly intervened in, I think, all the great Debates of this Parliament, and to talk about the Division record of so great a House of Commons man is quite unworthy of the hon. Member.
Let me say at once that I think the Government have very good reasons for not accepting any of the Amendments upon the Order Paper. At the same time I feel there was great force in the observations made by very many hon. and right hon. Members in all quarters of the House that at this very serious juncture in international politics it may prove impossible that we should separate for two months. I know that the Prime Minister realises that too, and that it is provided in the Motion that you, Mr. Speaker, on the advice of the Prime Minister, may summon the House if circumstances demand, as well they may. There is force, however, in what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping that for the Prime Minister to use this power might in itself introduce an atmosphere of crisis which he would not desire to introduce.
Therefore, my constructive suggestion, which I beg the Prime Minister to consider, is this. When he insists—I do not mind his insisting—on the terms of the Motion on the Paper, will he not also give the House one further category of cases in which he might deem it right to call the House together? The Prime Minister said, if I remember rightly, that he would summon the House if legislation were required, or if there were any change of policy to announce I quite agree with those two categories of circumstance, but I suggest one further category, and I should be content that the Prime Minister should be the judge whether a case in that category had arisen. It is that there should be such a state of public anxiety, or such a controversy in the country, that he thought it desirable to summon the House. I can imagine it being a perfectly good reason for summoning the House that the Opposition wanted it. I have no great fear that the leaders of the Opposition parties would put forward a frivolous request for the summoning of the House, and if they did so I am certain that the Prime Minister would turn it down, but


I am anxious that the Prime Minister should regard such a request as a potentially good reason for summoning the House. He should leave it open to himself to do so.

Sir H. Croft: He has that right now.

Mr. Strauss: I quite agree that he has, and if he said now that he would use it I should be quite content. I seriously suggest that if the only two categories are those which the Prime Minister has already given us, then if we receive a summons from Mr. Speaker it may look to observers in this country and abroad that something very serious has arisen, and that in itself may hamper the Prime Minister. If my right hon. Friend says in the speech that he is to make later that he can imagine circumstances in which, on grounds of controversy in the country, or an urgent request by an Opposition party, he would think it desirable to summon the House, notwithstanding that no crisis had arisen, I believe that that would strengthen his power under the terms of the Motion, and it would make me and some other Members on this side of the House perfectly happy and wholehearted in supporting the Government.
Let me put the position in this way: I believe, with some experience of the views of that part of the country, the capital city of which I have the honour to represent, that there is a desire that this House should be sitting when public opinion is gravely worried and possibly divided. If the House is not sitting, an unnatural and undesirable importance may be attached to irresponsible statements in the Press. I do not desire to confer on the Press of this country the power which it is likely to have in times of acute anxiety if this House is not sitting. I am quite content with the terms of the Motion, if the Prime Minister will satisfy us about the interpretation that he places upon it. He was right in naming the two categories which he did name, but I think that they are too narrow, if they are to be exclusive. I hope that the Prime Minister will tell me that my anxieties are wholly unnecessary and that he will consider it open to him, apart from any need for legislation or any change of policy, to summon this House—

Mr. Mander: Surely it is unnecessary for the hon. Member to labour the point

any further about calling the House together if legislation were needed. There is no concession in that. There is nothing in it at all.

Mr. Strauss: I am sorry if the hon. Member thinks that I am saying what is unnecessary. I agree that if legislation were necessary the House would be recalled, as it would also be if a change of policy had to be announced by the Prime Minister, who has promised to recall the House in those circumstances. I want the Prime Minister to say one further thing, that he can imagine further circumstances in which he would consider it desirable to recall the House, one of which might be widespread public anxiety and another a request—not necessarily a formal demand, but a serious request—by the Leaders of the Opposition parties. I beg my right hon. Friend to go a little further in that direction in stating the circumstances in which he would advise Mr. Speaker to call the House together.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I want to put one or two considerations before the Prime Minister. I want to ask him whether he agrees that the interrogations and assistance of the Opposition, as well as the advice of many hon. Members of this House, with regard to the Government's armament preparations up to date have been of value to Ministers in formulating their armament policy? We have had Votes dealing with our preparations, and Bills which run the country into many millions of pounds, affecting the lives of many men and women, and organising our forces in this country. In all that legislation, the most important factor has been that representatives of the people have discussed the legislation put forward in order to get the best possible result in the circumstances. Every consultation, and every meeting with the leaders of parties, with trade union leaders, Members of the Opposition or Members in other parts of the House, have been of great assistance to the Prime Minister. It has been stated by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) that we were now well ahead with our preparations and that we could disperse quite safely, because our country was in such a condition and so well armed and prepared that hon. Members could go off for their holidays.

Sir W. Davison: What I stated was that Parliament had passed all the legislation which enabled the country to get on with those preparations, and that Members would be much better employed going to their constituencies and explaining the legislation that had been passed, and explaining also how their constituents could help, than by sitting here.

Mr. Davidson: The OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will prove whether I am cor-rest. I do not recall the hon. Member saying that Members could go to their constituencies and explain the armaments policy. [Hon. Members: "Yes, he did."] He did nothing of the kind. [Hon. Members: "Withdraw."] I would point out to the hon. Member that during the old age pensions Debate the Prime Minister told the House that we were only halfway through our armaments programme. He said that we were only in the middle of our great arms defensive policy. Therefore the hon. Member and other Government supporters are entirely wrong in saying that we are now in such a state of preparation that we can go on holiday and leave the affairs of State to the Cabinet. He also added at the end of his speech in a very emphatic voice—I know that many hon. Members may repeat this—that we should also say, "Thank God that we have our Prime Minister here." [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I would point out to hon. Members that that is what the German Reichstag say to Herr Hitler. After they have been deprived of their rights and liberties and powers of interrogation they tell the people of Germany: "Have faith in Hitler. Thank God for Hitler." I hope that the sentimental liking of hon. Members for one man will not lead them to throw away lightly or frivolously the rights and privileges of the representatives of the people in this House.
In England, Scotland and Wales, we are asking the key-men of industry and the civilian population to rearrange, and, in many cases, to shorten their holidays. We are asking them in some cases to work excessive overtime and, after their daily duties, to give hours of their leisure time to preparing for the protection of the country. We are asking them to make sacrifices. At the same time we are here as representatives of the people saying that while it ought not to be business as usual for the men in the Militia,

because they must make a change in the whole of their lives, or for those who work in offices and factories and who then carry on, to prepare themselves in some method of defence, or for many other parts of the nation, we are the only people for whom it is business as usual. We can go off for our holidays and leave the preparations to the Cabinet. I trust that the Prime Minister will realise that many hon. Members have the right to say that they do not trust in him as the proper man to be head of the state of affairs which exists in the country. I have that right, and I expressed that right through the medium of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Labour Movement and the Scottish Co-operative Movement, all very important factors in the welfare of the nation and the armaments policy of the nation. These great organisations have all passed resolutions declaring that they cannot undertake to take part in many of the National Defence measures because of their complete distrust of the present Prime Minister as a man to lead that national campaign.
Therefore, it is right that I should say from these benches that I am opposed to the course the Prime Minister proposes in taking away the rights of Parliament at a time of crisis. Undoubtedly there is a time of crisis. Government supporters themselves in the Lobbies are laying the odds as to whether there will be a war or not. They are saying that Hitler may act now or may wait until his crops are in. The country is full of rumours. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet know that. During this time of crisis they are asking the House of Commons to disperse for two months, leaving the decisions in the hands of the present Cabinet which, because of the unsatisfactory working of many of its Members has been constantly reshuffled. I think the Minister of Labour sitting there is about the only Member who has kept his place in the Cabinet for any considerable period. There have been reshuffles because of inadequacy and inefficiency. We have an inner Cabinet composed of two former Foreign Secretaries who will run the affairs of State while the Members are away—two former Foreign Secretaries who were dismissed from office because they ran against the wishes of the people of this country. We


have the right as the representatives of the people to say that we should not break up and go away because of the tension in the country and because we are asking the people in industry and the manual workers to make sacrifices.
The Prime Minister said that if the policy of the Government were altered he would recall the House of Commons. The policy of the Government cannot be altered in a minute or an hour. There must be important events that lead up step by step to the altering of Government policy on foreign affairs. There must be incidents and there must be conversations. Surely it is right that hon. Members of this House who are interested in the affairs of the nation and of their constituents should see to it that they retain their right of interrogation. I stand as one who believes that the Prime Minister has constantly taken advantage of the holiday periods of Parliament to take in some particular point of his policy that we had not agreed upon. I believe the Prime Minister has taken advantage of these holiday periods to change his policy. He is operating to-day a different policy from that which operated before Munich. The Prime Minister's policy has been constantly changing and I suggest that, 'for the reasons I have put forward—we are only half way through our defensive preparations and are asking the key men of this country to make sacrifices—the Prime Minister should keep Parliament in his confidence not only when he decides to alter his policy but when steps are being taken which force him to alter his policy. I say the Opposition are justified in the view they take and are expressing the desire of the people in making their clear and concise claim that the Members of this House representing their constituents should be kept fully in touch with the affairs of the nation.

7.6 p.m..

Mr. Amery: I frankly regret the tone of the last speech which has brought the Debate down again to that level of imputation of motives and of suspicion which played a part in some earlier speeches, not from one side only, in this Debate. After all, the situation is far too serious for any imputation of that kind. We are in a state of what is, if not declared war, very near war. Every day

some act of aggression is being committed in Danzig which might at any moment precipitate a struggle. It may not be as distant even as 21st August. At a time like that I do not think any of us would wish to embarrass the work of the Government by calling Parliament together unnecessarily. Equally there are many of us who feel that if the crisis becomes graver, then the hands of the Government will not be weakened or their work embarrassed by having with them a united Parliament to strengthen and support them and act as their interpreter towards a united nation. The really important thing at this moment is unity, and it is from that point of view that I deprecate any suggestion that the views of either side on this question are influenced by any other consideration except the needs of the country and the gravity of the situation.
Those of us who may not be willing to accept the Amendments of the Leaders of the Opposition are, I think, prepared—I certainly am—to assume that their motives and their speeches were influenced by no other consideration than a patriotic desire to help the country, and through the country, the Government, at a moment of crisis. The only suggestion I would make—here I would like to endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss)—is to appeal to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to give a lead himself in that insistence upon national unity and in that faith in the patriotism of the whole House by adding to the conditions that he has already made under which he will summon the House together, the assurance that representations made responsibly by Leaders of the Opposition—and I am sure they are not men who will make them frivolously or without necessity—

Mr. Alexander: Might I say that we did not make them frivolously last year, but our request was put off until it was too late?

Mr. Amery: I was only suggesting that if these representations are made—they were made, I am fully prepared to admit, in all seriousness last year—if they are made on this occasion, that my right hon. Friend should take them into serious and sympathetic consideration. He, naturally, cannot pledge himself to accept them, but I think he would set at ease


the minds of a great many Members of this House and contribute to the unity of the nation and Parliament before we separate if he told the whole House that a manifestation, responsibly made from whatever quarter, of the feeling of the House, that it was believed that the situation was grave enough to warrant the reassembly of Parliament, would meet with his serious consideration.

7.10 p.m.

The Prime Minister: We have now debated this question for over three hours, and I think the House is probably prepared to come to a decision. I have not noticed any signs of conversion visibly proceeding on the part of hon. Members who have listened to the proceedings on one side or the other. Before I examine the arguments that have been put forward there is one matter to which, I think, I must address myself for a minute or two. Two speeches were made by hon. Members opposite, the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) which were particularly addressed to myself, and which greatly impressed me by their evident sincerity. They particularly asked me to believe that in the minds of the back benchers this was not regarded as a Vote of Censure. They wanted me, therefore, to give more unbiased and impartial consideration to what they put before me than I could have afforded if my own position were at stake. I am afraid the speech of the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) will have shown the two hon. Members that they cannot speak for the back benches either, and however much they might wish to disassociate themselves from the Front Bench, it is to the Front Bench that I must look for an official exposition of the views of the Opposition.
It has been stated that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary has not issued a three-line whip on this occasion, and some hon. Friends of mine have gone so far as to express their gratitude to him for abstaining from issuing a three-line whip. I almost imagine that it is to be inferred from that that unless a three-line whip were issued hon. Members who are supposed to support the Government would be free to take any line that they like. Some who have spoken to-day feel that the paramount duty of a Member of

Parliament, wherever he sits, is to criticise the Government—the Executive, I think, was the phrase used. Others feel that they must sometimes subordinate those differences of opinion which must always exist in any party to major issues and major interests. No doubt each must judge for himself in his own conscience which of these considerations is to before most in his mind. On this occasion I wish to point out that the official Opposition has stated very plainly through the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman who is leading them this afternoon that the root of the matter was their distrust of the Government and their suspicion that the moment Parliament's back was turned the Government would use the opportunity to change their policy.

Mr. Gallacher: To continue their policy.

The Prime Minister: No. That was not what he said. He said they would take the opportunity when the back of Parliament was turned to do something they would not be able to do when Parliament was sitting. I am not complaining about the right hon. Gentleman speaking frankly on this subject. On the contrary, I am rather grateful to him for having put the matter so clearly. All that I want to point out to my hon. Friends is that, when the matter has been put in that way, it is the good faith of the Government that is at stake, and whether there be a three-line whip, a two-line whip, or no whip at all, a vote against the Government on this occasion must, after the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman, be a vote of want of confidence. It must be clear in every quarter of the House that the good faith of the Government is questioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was good enough to say that he did not distrust my good faith; it was my judgment that he distrusted. I am rather inclined to say, tu quoque. Still we come back to the same point. It does not matter whether you mistrust the Government because you mistrust their good faith or because you mistrust their judgment; the question is whether you trust the Government or distrust the Government. If you distrust them, and show it by your vote, very well; it is a vote of no confidence in the Government, and no confidence in the Prime Minister in particular. That is all I want to say on that point.
I want now to examine some of the arguments that have been put forward. Let me say, first of all, that many of the speeches left on my mind the impression that those who were making them—I am thinking of the critics, of course—were very badly in need of a holiday, that their reasoning faculties wanted a little freshening up at the seaside. A great many of them argued on the basis, and repeated it over and over again—the right hon. Gentleman who was leading the Opposition was the first offender in this respect—that the situation before the House was this, that the House, in these critical times, was asked to go away for two months. Yes, for two months with qualifications—with the provision that, if during those two months the public interest required that 'the House should meet again, the House would be called together. They may say," But who knows that you will call the House together? "Once again we come back to the question: Do you trust the judgment and good faith of the Prime Minister and his colleagues? [Interruption.] I shall say something about last year presently, but first let me deal with the general line of argument, and not with specific allegations. The general line of argument led to very different conclusions in different parts of the House. The official Amendment of the party opposite indicates that they feel that the critical time when the House is to be called together will probably be on 21st August. Then there is the view of the party below the Gangway. They tip a day later. Then there is the view of the hon. Member for Ince, which, again, is not the view put forward by the official Opposition. His view is that we ought to go on sitting for three weeks, by which time, he is of opinion—for what reason I do not quite understand—that we shall have come to an agreement with the Soviet Government.

Mr, G. Macdonald: What I said was that it would be more likely to be done in three weeks than to-day.

The Prime Minister: It would be three weeks nearer the time, I agree. There were some warning words in the official communiqueé from Moscow which perhaps the hon. Gentleman may not have read, and, in view of that, it is quite clear that in their opinion it would not be wise

to be too optimistic about reaching a very speedy conclusion. Then there was the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), that perhaps the matter would be cleared up if the two illustrations which I had given as to the circumstances which might lead me to recommend Mr. Speaker to call the House together were to be supplemented by saying that there were other conceivable circumstances in which the House might be called together. He went on to make what I thought was a more questionable suggestion, namely, that I should give an assurance that I would listen favourably to any request from the Opposition that the House should be called together. That would not at all suit the Leader of the Opposition, because he said that the responsibility lay here, and that this was the only place where it ought to lie. With that I thoroughly agree. But if I were to say that I would call the House together on the demand of the Opposition, the responsibility would no longer lie here, but across the Floor of the House with hon. Gentlemen opposite.
There is another alternative, which I do not recollect being actually put forward by anyone. I may be doing some hon. Members an injustice, but I do not recollect its being put forward by anyone. It is that we should stay here all the time. As a matter of fact, all the arguments that were used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping—arguments based upon the serious nature of the situation, the formidable preparations that were going on, the number of millions of men who were under arms to-day and the number who would be under arms tomorrow, the stories of the militarisation of Danzig, the Far East, and so forth—all his arguments were based on that gloomy picture, and indicated that in his opinion, if the House were sitting, the danger from any of these preparations would be minimised. That argument must lead inevitably to the conclusion that the House must not separate at all. I was astounded then to hear my right hon. Friend suggest that, after all, the House might safely adjourn for a fortnight or three weeks. That is the very time when, if the House by sitting could prevent these terrible emergencies arising, it ought to be here. Then there arises another question. I see that my right hon. Friend


shakes his head. I do not know whether he means that no other question arises—

Mr. Churchill: I shook it in sorrow.

The Prime Minister: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's sorrow, but in this matter we are not considering personal feelings; we have to consider what, in the terms of the Motion, is the public interest. Let me say that in the long run that is the consideration which overrides everything else, and that is the consideration which, to the best of the judgment that the Government can exercise, must control the time at which the House would be called together.
Let me come to another point, arising out of what I said just now. Is it the case that, when the House is sitting, the danger of war is minimised? The hon. Member for Ince did not agree with that view. It is true that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping put forward illustrations designed to show that the dictators keep a careful watch on the sittings of the House, and that, the moment they hear that Parliament is dispersed, they will feel that that is the time to bring off the next coup. Is that going quite far enough into the examples of what has taken place in the last two years? Have we forgotten what has sometimes been called "the rape of Austria"? Did that take place during the holidays? No; the House was in session at the time; but the House was not able to prevent it. There was another instance more recently, which, I should have thought, would not have passed out of the minds of hon. Members, since it only occurred last March. On 15th March the German troops began to move on Prague. The House was in session; indeed we had a Debate that same afternoon. Not only was the House in session, but it was active; it was talking about it; but it did not stop it.
Let me say a word about what happened last year. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said, and said truly, that requests were made to me, during the month of September last year, by the Leaders of the Opposition, to call Parliament together, and that they were not accepted. I remember that on 20th September I had a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, in which he said:

 In view of the reported nature of the proposals "—
this was after my first visit to Berchtes-gaden—
 In view of the reported nature of the proposals submitted to the Government of Czecho-Slovakia, which contemplate the dismemberment of a sovereign State at the dictation of the ruler of Germany, and involve this country in giving a guarantee in the future of Continental frontiers, I feel strongly that, before Britain is committed to this grave departure from the declared British policy, Parliament should be consulted without further delay, and I ask you to take steps for its immediate assembly.
I replied:
 At the moment I am engaged in difficult and delicate negotiations with the object of finding a peaceful solution of a problem which, if not handled with the utmost care, may have the most serious consequences for this country. To call Parliament together now, and require me to take part in the debates while these negotiations are still in progress, would make my task impossible, but you may be assured that the necessary steps will be taken for summoning a special meeting of Parliament as soon as matters have proceeded far enough to enable me to make a full statement.
On the 28th of that month Parliament was summoned, and I was met with a volume of protests from the Opposition, but, indeed, the proceedings of the House were singularly unanimous in approving the further steps that it was pro posed to take. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was that if the House had been summoned earlier, say, on 20th September, somehow or other—

Mr. Alexander: Or earlier than that.

The Prime Minister: Or earlier than that. The suggestion was that Parliament could have so altered affairs in Europe that the independence of Czechoslovakia could ultimately have been preserved. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) went further still. He said that if Parliament had been summoned we could have mobilised the Fleet and made an agreement with Russia, which would have saved Czecho-Slovakia. I am not going to make any comment on that suggestion by the right hon. Gentleman; I am just going to leave it in its full beauty.

Sir A. Sinclair: Yet the astonishing thing is that this is exactly what the Prime Minister did before he got Herr Hitler to meet him at Munich.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman said that if Parliament had been called together earlier in the month of September last year, Czecho-Slovakia could have been saved and war averted by the mobilisation of the Fleet and the completion of an agreement with Russia.

Mr. Churchill: Highly probable.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend very often finds himself in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he has done so again on this occasion. Threfore, I will only say that I totally and utterly disagree with him.

Sir A. Sinclair: Why were those the things that the Prime Minister did?

The Prime Minister: It is perfectly clear, if one takes the Amendment of the Opposition as it stands, that it is completely without reasonable foundation. No one could possibly say that there is any reason to pick out a particular date in August and say that that would be a suitable date for the meeting of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping said that it would be a splendid thing to have this date up our sleeve. That seems to me a singularly unfortunate description of a procedure which would tie us down to this date. I claim that the procedure which we are proposing and which has been followed on other occasions, is the procedure which would enable us to have a Debate up our sleeve, and keep it up our sleeve until there is reason to bring it down again. I put it to the House that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is inconsistent with its avowed purpose, that it has no logical foundation, and that, on account of the reasons which he has given to the House for adopting it, namely, that it is moved because of the distrust of the party opposite with the Government in general, and with the Prime Minister in particular—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]—which is endorsed, at any rate, by some of the backbenchers opposite—the Amendment is reduced merely to another form of the usual vote of no confidence in the Government, and I confidently expect my hon. Friends to defeat it.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I venture to say that the Prime Minister in the speech he has just made has missed one of the greatest opportunities of his career. He has

made a narrow, bitter, partisan speech, which shows him to be, as my right hon. Friend has said, the greatest single obstacle to unity in this country. It was quite easy for him to ride off in the way he wanted to, but we know quite well that, apart from the speeches made on this side, there have been speeches from his own supporters, many representing different points of view, appealing to him to make some move, to make some concession to the widespread feeling throughout the country. I came down to-day, I must say, prepared to make a critical and hostile speech, but when I saw the course the Debate was taking and heard the genuine appeals that were being made to the Prime Minister to meet us as a House of Commons, I deliberately abstained from making that speech, because I did not want to do anything to exacerbate feeling. I felt that some little thing I said might make it more difficult for the Prime Minister to respond to what I believe is a very widespread feeling in this House. I am going to make that speech now. [Interruption.] Now that the "yes-men" have retired—

Mr. Bracken: Is it not a shame to call them "yes-men"? Ought they not to be called "nodders"?

Mr. Mander: —those of us, in all parties, who try to keep some mind of our own and to express it from time to time can continue what I think may still be a useful discussion. The Prime Minister said he wants the Opposition to co-operate with him; but if he wants that he must play the game, and he is not playing the game. We are not asking for our own leaders to be in the Government, but we are asking, with some Members of his own party, that some of the Conservative leaders who have always proved to be absolutely right on questions of foreign policy should be in the Government. Why are they not in the Government? For two reasons: partly because the Prime Minister thinks that their presence there would upset and destroy his personal dictatorship and his domination in his own Cabinet, and partly because he thinks that Herr Hitler would not like it. I am sure that one of the reasons why the Prime Minister would not take the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) into his Cabinet is that he thinks it might antagonise Herr Hitler.

Mr. Churchill: I hope that I shall be consulted before I am brought in.

Mr. Mander: The right hon. Gentleman is such a public figure—

Mr. Denman: Is this relevant to the Motion or to the Amendment?

Mr. Mander: —that it is not possible to avoid drawing him into the Debate. Other Members of the Conservative party are not in the Government because it is suggested that it would offend Mussolini and Portugal and that perhaps Franco would not like it. The Prime Minister's attitude this afternoon has confirmed the worst fears of all those who think that directly Parliament is up there will be a tremendous move in the direction of appeasement, and that he will use all his powers to bring about a situation that will place us in the gravest danger and alter the foreign policy upon which we are united at the present time. Some of us hold grave suspicions with regard to what he is doing about Russia. Some people think that the sending of the three military officers to Russia is a very clever attempt to blind the public, in order to get over a period of two months until we get past the danger point in October, and that then, Hitler having been sufficiently frightened in the meantime, it might be possible for the Prime Minister to let the negotiations with Russia slide. We know that he does not want an Anglo-Soviet pact, that he will only consent to it if it is forced upon him against his will. His personal antagonism to Russia is well known throughout the country.

Major Procter: What is your authority for saying that?

Mr. Bevan: Did not the Prime Minister, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) say that in three weeks' time he might be able to look forward to that?

Mr. Mander: The sort of thing that so many people are fearing is something like this—perhaps I might put it in the form of analogy: soon after the House has risen there may appear a sentence in a leading article in the "Times"—of course, entirely without any Government authorisation, and hostile to their desires, so that it will greatly annoy them—which will say that the case of Danzig is not

worth a war—they have said that already—that negotiations ought to be tried, that it is a case where, with good will, people sitting round a table may come to an agreement. We shall be told that Poland has asked for the presence of Lord Runciman—that will be the phrase, "that they have asked"—in order to mediate. We shall learn on the next day that Sir Nevile Henderson has joined the party at Danzig; we shall be told on the day after that Sir Horace Wilson has also found his way there, and probably on the next day we shall learn that Sir Francis Lindley has joined the party, too. The final scene, in the belief of some people, will be this: that a seaplane will depart carrying the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary to Danzig, leaving the Foreign Secretary on the Yorkshire moors. There are vast numbers of people throughout the country who will be confirmed in their conviction that., while that may no doubt be an extravaganza and an exaggeration of the facts, something of that kind, and on those lines, is by no means outside the bounds of possibility.
There is one other point I want to mention because people have put it to me. Suppose a situation arises where, in spite of the strong representations of the Leaders of the Opposition, and of Members opposite too, the Prime Minister absolutely refuses to call Parliament together. Members of Parliament have access to the Palace of Westminster at all times when the House is sitting or when it is not sitting. All Members should seriously consider, if a situation of that kind really arose, and the Prime Minister were affronting the feeling of the country, whether public support would not welcome the possibility of Members meeting here and in this Chamber on their own.

Mrs. Tate: Would the hon. Member give us his assurance that in that event he would refrain from speaking, as it would be a great convenience?

Mr. Mander: If I had known that the hon. Lady was only going to be offensive, I do not think that I should have troubled to give way. I know that the hon. Lady is usually of such a kindly nature; at least I have always found her so. Such a meeting as I suggest, I know, would be purely informal, with no constitutional authority, but it is worth consideration in certain circumstances. I


believe that the Prime Minister has rendered a profound disservice to this nation and the peace of the whole world by the narrow partisan attitude he has taken up this afternoon. I want to make this clear: I do not for the moment doubt, and I never have, his good intentions, his patriotism and his desire for peace. I want to make that perfectly clear. There is nothing personal whatever, and there never will be. There is not the slightest doubt about that. I always say it at meetings even when people are anxious for me not to do so, because I believe it is true. What I profoundly distrust, as do vast numbers of people all over the country, is his judgment. My right hon. Friend was perfectly right, and I will say it once again, in saying that the Prime Minister, in spite of all his good intentions and his desire for peace, remains the main obstacle to unity in this country in these vital times.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Cartland: I am sorry to detain the House for a few moments, but I would like to say a few words as a backbencher of the Prime Minister's own party. It seemed to me, listening tonight, that there was a difference of view put forward by those who spoke from the Opposition side and those who spoke from this side, and perhaps the Prime Minister was quite justified in saying that many of the speeches made by the Opposition showed that Members lacked confidence in him. [Interruption.] Hon. Members have every right to say it. They are here so that they can express their opinions. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that everybody who spoke from this side put forward quite different arguments. All who have spoken from this side were meticulously careful to say that they did not regard this as a vote of confidence, and they welcomed the fact that the Prime Minister, in his opening speech, had most carefully not said that he regarded it as a vote of confidence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), right at the end of his speech, made an almost passionate appeal to the Prime Minister to view from the angle of national unity the demand that we should come back at an earlier date and not adjourn until 3rd October. If the demand came from Opposition leaders to the Prime Minister, he should try to look at it, even in spite

of the speeches which had been made today, in an impartial manner.
I am profoundly disturbed by the speech of the Prime Minister. We are going to separate until 3rd October. I suppose the majority of us in this House are going down to our constituencies to make speeches. A fantastic and ludicrous impression, as everybody on both sides of the House, with perhaps one exception, knows, exists in this country that the Prime Minister has ideas of dictatorship. It is a ludicrous impression and everybody here on both sides of the House knows it is ludicrous, but it does exist in the country. [An Hon. Member: "Nonsense."] The hon. Gentleman says nonsense. I happen to represent the division next to that of the Prime Minister, the largest in Birmingham—

Sir Patrick Harmon: No.

Mr. Cartland: My hon. Friend has more people in his division, but I have the largest area. I do not know how many meetings I have addressed in the last year, but over and over again, I have had to deny the absurd impression that the Prime Minister in some way has ideas of dictatorship. I happened to speak some time ago on the same platform as the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). I heard him say, on that occasion, what he has just said, that he has never challenged the personal work and the personal desire of the Prime Minister for peace. We have all said that, and yet there is the ludicrous impression in this country that the Prime Minister has these dictatorship ideas. The speech which he has made this afternoon and his absolute refusal to accept any of the proposals put forward by Members on both sides of the House will make it much more difficult for those of us to try and dispel that idea.

Sir P. Hannon: Has my hon. Friend heard, in his division or anywhere else, when engaged in the prosecution of his political work, any suggestion in any quarter whatever that the Prime Minister is pursuing a policy of dictatorship?

Mr. Cartland: I regret very much to say that I have. That is precisely what I have just said, and if it is of any interest to my hon. Friend, I received a letter this morning from a constituent of mine posted in King's Norton, and signed "Conservative." She has been a Conservative all her life, and she writes to


me now to say that she is very upset because so many people think the Prime Minister is a friend of Hitler. I would not have brought that in if my hon. Friend had not interrupted.
The right hon. Gentleman is the head of a strong Government. He has an immense vote and he knows that he can carry anything through the Lobby. He has only to consult his right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, and he can get anything through. How easy it would be for him, when the whole of democracy is trying to stand together to resist aggression, to say that he had tremendous faith in this democratic institution. Personally I cannot see why he could not come down and say, "We will decide to meet on 21st August, or on a certain date, and if, after consulting with the Opposition Leaders, we are all agreed that there is no reason to meet, then do not let Parliament meet." Everybody would accept that. We are in the situation that within a month we may be going to fight, and we may be going to die. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to say "Oh." There are thousands of young men at the moment in training in camps, and giving up their holiday, and the least that we can do here, if we are not going to meet together from time to time and keep Parliament in session, is to show that we have immense faith in this democratic institution. I cannot imagine why the Prime Minister could not have made a great gesture in the interests of national unity. It is much more important, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, to get the whole country behind you rather than make jeering, pettifogging party speeches which divide the nation. How can the Prime Minister ask for real confidence in himself as Prime Minister, and as Leader of the country rather than Leader of a party? I frankly say that I despair when I listen to speeches like that to which I have listened this afternoon.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The House is always generous to a view which is sincerely put forward, even if it is not universally held in this House, and I crave only a few minutes of the time of the House to make two observations. All those who have listened to the whole of this Debate must be struck with the contrast

between the speech with which the Prime Minister opened it and the tone of the speech with which he closed it. He opened the Debate as Leader of the House, and I was very much encouraged to think that if he would not make a concession, he would at least give some pledge or assurance which would enable many Members of the House to go away reassured as to what would be the method by which he would operate his powers under this Motion. I do not think that the Debate, except in a very few speeches, was such as to explain the extraordinary change that came over the character of the speech with which he wound up the Debate. I do not think that there was very much of which to complain. He made a very adroit speech, making the most of accusations of bad faith, which, of course, is just the normal procedure which adroit Parliamentary speakers use to show the mistakes or maladjustments in the speeches of their opponents. The speeches which were made in the course of the Debate did not seem to justify that attitude.
I say most sincerely that I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will carry out exactly what he says. I have great confidence in his personal honour. He has a very high standard. He is very careful as to how he frames his speeches, because he is so jealous of his honour. Any one who followed both speeches would see that he reserves to himself full powers for his own judgment, and his judgment alone, to be exercised. I still thought, until his last speech, and particularly the last sentences, that he would give us some assurance not merely that a change in the policy of the Government would recall Parliament—he has given us that before—not merely that a crisis of so grave a kind naturally made the calling of Parliament necessary because of legislation and Votes on Account and so on, but that, if a radical change in the situation of Europe took place, he would then think it his duty to ask Parliament to meet in order that it might freely express its opinion.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member must surely see that, while it is not possible for me, by myself, to give specific pledges now about conditions which have not yet arisen and which cannot be foreseen, such circumstances as those which he describes must necessarily be included in my view.

Mr. Macmillan: What the Prime Minister has now said certainly entirely alters the situation and gives me great re-assurance. When he gave his account of the proceedings last year he justified the non calling together of Parliament until after the event. Supposing an event similar to that which led up to the week before Berchtesgaden, supposing there was a mobilisation and a moving of troops, supposing that kind of change in the present situation was to come about, on last year's programme Parliament would not meet until some final situation had been reached, on the ground—I can quite understand it—that delicate negotiations required the full attention of Ministers. What the right hon. Gentleman now says I accept as an assurance that if any substantial change takes place in this strange lull, which may be the lull before the storm or may be the beginning of better things, Parliament will be called, and I, and I think many of my Friends, will be completely willing to leave the matter to his judgment and will feel immensely reassured.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to raise a point which has not been touched on throughout the Debate, but before dealing with it I want to comment on the very cheap character of the Prime Minister's speech. The earnest, deeply felt speech of the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland) was a thousand times more damning to the Prime Minister than all the cheap jeers of those who sat behind him during that speech, in which he dealt with the arguments for the earlier calling of Parliament. There is another thing which it is necessary to take note of and that is the. offensive sneer when the Prime Minister referred to the negotiations with the Soviet Union. A few weeks ago I Asked a supplementary question, and the Prime Minister's reply was a deliberate insult to the Soviet Union. It is as clear as anything that the Prime Minister is not in favour of a pact with the Soviet Union. He would do anything, backed by a number of his supporters, to prevent it
The point that I want to come to is this: The question is whether Parliament shall meet on 21st August or 3rd October. I am for 21st August, but if we are not going to have 21st August let us have 3rd October, and no calling of Parliament

by the Prime Minister. We had an experience last year, and no one who has any respect for the House or for democracy will want it repeated. We had the House called together after a state of panic had been created, and the House of Commons meeting in a condition of panic is utterly incapable of carrying on any business. If we meet on 21st August we shall carry on with our normal business regardless of any crisis that may be developing. When we were called together in a hurry the Prime Minister read a letter that he had sent to Hitler: "Dear Herr Hitler, You can get everything you want without worry and without delay," and the House of Commons passed it. I got up and protested against in. Only in a panic could Parliament acquiesce in the sending of such a letter. If we met in the normal way and the Prime Minister proposed sending a letter telling Hitler that he could get everything he wanted, is it possible that we should allow that to pass?
I am absolutely opposed to this idea of Parliament being out of session and the Prime Minister carrying on negotiations and then calling Parliament together. The attitude of Members supporting the Prime Minister is an evidence of what we can drift into. He has a whole crowd of supporters who would be quite prepared to come to the House periodically and, whatever the Prime Minister put before them, they would give their assent and depart. The exhibition that was given while the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) was speaking is an indication that you have Members here who are better suited for the Reichstag, who would come in when the Prime Minister wants them and go out when he does not. When the Prime Minister spoke about Austria being invaded while the House was in session the friends of Ribbentrop, who associated with the Cliveden gang, had already been busy on the job. Everything was covered up until the last moment. It was the same with Prague. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after Prague was invaded, told the House that the Government had no knowledge that Hitler was going to invade Prague, despite the fact that on 6th March the "Daily Worker" published an interview which stated that every public man in Prague expected Hitler to march in on 15th March. Yet


the Government knew nothing about it. We have the finest Secret Service in the world.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: The hon. Member has probably forgotten that the House of Commons was sitting at that very time.

Mr. Gallacher: That is what we were told, that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office had no knowledge that the preparations were being made for entry into Prague. If they had it they kept it hidden from the House. In the French Parliament, when M. Bonnet was questioned as to when he first had information about the intention of Hitler to invade Prague, he said he had it on 9th March, and he immediately communicated it to the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. On 17th March the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to a question that the Government had no knowledge of Hitler's intentions. It was kept back from the House of Commons, and that is why the march was carried through without let or hindrance. If the Foreign Office had used the knowledge that it had, if the Secret Service was providing it with the information, we could have had a discussion and made communications with other countries and stopped the invasion. It is because you had a Prime Minister and a Cabinet who are more concerned with assisting the dictators, more concerned to maintain Fascism, because Fascism represents privilege and property, more concerned to assist the aggressors than to bring about unity either in this country or in Europe, that you have such a situation.
I support the Amendment as the result of my experience last year when we had the House called together in a panic, ready to do whatever the Prime Minister might suggest, and ready to carry through the grossest possible betrayal of a democratic nation. I protest against any possibility of such a thing happening again. I remember the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Nicolson) stating that the House had given an exhibition of mass hysteria which did it no credit. We want no more of that. We want a normal House which can meet and seriously consider and discuss all questions that come before it on 21st August, and

carry on in a normal way ready to meet any crisis that may arise.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Harold Macmillan) when he said he was filled with encouragement and reassurance by the opening remarks with which the Prime Minister introduced this Motion but, with him, I feel very grave perturbation at the tone of my right hon. Friend's remarks in replying to the Debate. It seemed to me that considering the feeling that undoubtedly exists throughout the country, this was an occasion when the Prime Minister, with a vast majority behind him, could have afforded, with grace, without any loss of face, without any loss of prestige, to make some concession to the point of view of other sections of opinion in the House. It is almost, if not entirely, unprecedented for there to be a Debate of this kind, in which feeling has run so high, on the simple question of whether this House should adjourn for its holiday. It is a matter which in the past has always been settled by common consent in all quarters of the House. It is a matter which, in my opinion, it should have been possible to agree upon without a vote and without any appeals to confidence or to party loyalty. This is not a party issue. It is a House of Commons affair. The Government have the right to advise the Crown in the exercise of its prerogative to prorogue Parliament at the end of the Session. But that is quite a different thing from the Adjournment, which is what we are to-day discussing. The question as to when and for how long we are to adjourn is clearly a matter for the House to decide and not the Government. The Prime Minister as Leader of the House and not as Leader of a party is proposing a Motion for which, I submit, he should previously have obtained agreement from all sections of opinion in the House.
I am very much distressed that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should have thought it either necessary, wise or politic at this moment to make the issue as to whether the House should continue to sit during these two critical months, a question of confidence in himself and in his Government. This question has nothing to do with confidence. Does the Prime Minister really feel justified in treating as a question of confidence and


party loyalty the very genuine desire expressed by hon. Members in different parts of the House and by the public throughout the country, that the House' of Commons, in this critical, dangerous, emergency period, should not go for its normal holiday, but should continue vigilantly to watch the affairs of the nation? This Debate has nothing to do with confidence or lack of confidence in the Government. It is concerned with the public duty of hon. Members and of the determination of the country that nothing shall be left undone that may contribute to the strengthening of the will of Great Britain at a time of grave international emergency.
I submit to hon. Members and to the Government that this House of Commons has in these times a very important function to perform. In the course of his speech the Prime Minister read a letter which he had addressed to the Leader of the Opposition last September, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's request for the recall of Parliament. In that letter the Prime Minister said that in view of the delicate negotiations which were proceeding he did not feel that he could recall Parliament, but, that he would do so as soon as the Government were in a position to make a statement.
We all sympathise with the difficulties of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary when delicate negotiations are being conducted. As one who has served in the Foreign Office myself I am fully aware how impossible it is for a responsible Minister to discuss publicly questions upon which negotiations are being conducted with a foreign Power. But it seems to have escaped the Prime Minister's attention that there are other functions which this House has to perform besides merely receiving statements from the Government. If he had recalled Parliament earlier last September we should perfectly have understood if he had said to us that during those critical negotiations he was not in a position to make more than a few general remarks on the situation. We should not have pressed him for information which he could not properly give. That was not the reason for the request for Parliament's recall. The purpose of recalling Parliament was not primarily to receive a statement from the Government, because most of the facts were already well known to hon. Members.

They had mostly appeared in the newspapers by then. The reason why the country wished Parliament to be recalled was in order that hon. Members representing as they do public opinion, should have an opportunity before it was too late and before any irrevocable decision was taken, to express to the Government the views of the British people. That is and always will be the main function of this House of Commons. I therefore ask the Prime Minister for an assurance that he will not only recall Parliament in the event of there being a need for fresh legislation or for the announcement of some change of Government policy, but that he will also in certain circumstances recall us in order to give hon. Members an opportunity to come here and to express to the Government their views on the situation. The Leader of the Opposition said that the responsibility in this matter lay with the Government. I cannot agree that the responsibility does lie with the Government. Hon. Members are deciding to-day for how long they are to adjourn. Ours is the ultimate responsibility, and one which we cannot evade. Ours will be the responsibility for the outcome of the two fateful months that lie ahead. No vote taken in this House to-day can divest the Commons of Great Britain of the responsibility which they have for the conduct of the affairs of this country.
The only reason why it is suggested that we should adjourn now, is because it is usual and normal for the House of Commons to adjourn at the end of July or the beginning of August for two or three months' holiday. But times are not normal. The Prime Minister told us a little while ago, when he introduced the Military Training Bill, that whilst this is not exactly a period of war he could not say that it was a period of peace. Times are not normal. The Fleet is mobilised, or practically mobilised. The Air Force is in a state of readiness, day and night. Anti-aircraft units of the Territorial Army are at this moment fully embodied. I myself am only able to come here on a few hours' leave from my regiment. If the danger with which we are faced is really so grave as to require these most exceptional emergency precautions which are being taken day and night to guard against the possibility of some sudden deterioration in the situation, is it unreasonable for the people of this country


and for the Members who represent them here in this House to ask for some slight modification in our usual holiday plans? That is the simple question to be decided.
This was, I feel, a case where the Government could have afforded to make some concession and to reach some compromise with those who take a different view from themselves. I fully understand the Prime Minister's point of view. He feels that he is perfectly well able to manage the nation's affairs by himself and that it is unnecessary for the House to meet during the Recess. But surely he also appreciates how very undesirable it is that the House should separate with a difference of opinion on this matter.
In my view the Prime Minister would have done well to grant the Opposition's request for a one day's sitting later in August. He could have explained that he thought it unnecessary, but that he would consent to it, if only because he did not wish there to be any foundation for the suggestion that the Government were seeking to resist the House of Commons in the exercise of its functions, or to prevent hon. Members from doing what they considered to be their duty in this time of grave emergency. There is nothing more needed at this moment than national unity, and there is no man in the country who needs national unity more than the Prime Minister in the difficult tasks which lie ahead of him. I must, therefore, say how much I regret the tone of the speech which my right hon. Friend has delivered this afternoon. It has, I fear, decreased rather than increased the prospect of that national unity which we all so much desire.

8.27 p.m.

Sir P. Hannon: We have heard this afternoon a very remarkable speech from the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland), and as I was partly responsible for getting him in his present seat, I am bound to apologise to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the House, for the poisonous quality of the speech he delivered this afternoon. He suggested that in Birmingham and in his own division there was some sort of feeling—

Sir Richard Acland: Has the hon. Member given notice to the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland) that he was going to reply?

Sir P. Hannon: I think the hon. Member should be here to hear the reply. In making his speech the hon. Member used language which I have rarely heard in this House with regard to the Prime Minister of the country. He suggested that there was some sort of feeling in the City of Birmingham, and in his own division in particular, because of a letter he had received from some ancient matron, who is anonymous, that the Prime Minister was pursuing a policy of dictatorship. Hon. Members will believe me that that is an idea very remote from the minds of the masses of the people of Birmingham. They have a profound belief and confidence in the Prime Minister—

Mr. Foot: Will the hon. Member allow me to interrupt him?

Sir P. Hannon: No, I am not going to give way. I want to make it clear to the House that I think the speech which has been delivered by the hon. Member—

Mr. Davidson: Who is absent.

Sir P. Hannon: That is not my fault. I want to make clear to the House my regret and disappointment that I had anything to do with his selection as a Member of Parliament for his division.

Mr. Davidson: Tell us what you did.

Sir P. Hannon: I am not going to do that. I am here to say that the speech of the hon. Member for King's Norton does not represent in the smallest conceivable degree the opinion held of the Prime Minister by the people of Birmingham. We have profound confidence in the Prime Minister, and I regret to think that one of my colleagues in the representation of the City of Birmingham, which has played so great a part in moulding the political life of this nation, has made a speech of the quality we heard from him this afternoon.

Mr. Bracken: May I interrupt the hon. Member?

Sir P. Hannon: I am not going to give way. I want to declare on behalf of the people of the city of Birmingham their profound confidence in the Prime Minister, their devotion to his policy, and their opposition to the views expressed by the hon. Member for King's Norton, and I give way to nobody while I am expressing those views. We have had a very


strange Debate this afternoon. Hon Members opposite wish to tie the hands of the Prime Minister as to the time of the reassembly of Parliament if an emergency should arise.

Mr. Davidson: That is a lie.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must withdraw that expression.

Mr. Davidson: If I have said anything which transgresses the rules I will withdraw it, but I would point out that it has been agreed by the Prime Minister himself that the Opposition placed their Amendment on the Order Paper in good faith and in the interests of the country.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member has withdrawn the expression?

Mr. Davidson: Yes, Sir.

Sir P. Hannon: My point is that the Amendment if it were passed would tie the hands of the Prime Minister as to the reassembling of Parliament. I want to conclude by saying, on behalf of my colleagues in the representation of the city of Birmingham and the Midland area—I am chairman of that body—that we profoundly disagree with the speech made by the hon. Member for King's Norton, and I wish to express on behalf of my colleagues from Birmingham our profound devotion to the Prime Minister and our complete confidence in the policy he is pursuing.

8.33 p.m.

Sir R. Acland: The Prime Minister recently has been, I must say, bobbing up and down with pleasure on the Front Bench whenever he could detect any of us saying anything which seemed to suggest that we had any suspicion of any sort or any kind whatever, and the pleasure he has shown when we have expressed our suspicions suggests to me that he has in mind the conduct of an early election in which the electors will be asked to regard criticism of himself as wholly contrary to the interests of a democratic country. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has ever stopped to ask himself why it is that hon. Members of this House are bound to be a little suspicious of him at times. He is not in his place at the moment, and one can understand that, but two of his closest" colleagues are on the bench now, and I

wonder whether they would convey this short point to the Prime Minister, because it might be useful in creating that national unity which we so much want.
One of the reasons why we cannot have any confidence in the Prime Minister is because we have never been able to detect in any sentence in any of the speeches he has made in this House any realisation on his part that we represent anything at all. He always treats us as though he already represented the whole nation and we on this side represented absolutely nothing. It really is impossible for us to give confidence and to contribute to unity, not only ourselves, but on behalf of the Prime Minister's fellow citizens, the people who sent us to the House, if all the time we are despised by the Prime Minister as being of no account, and if, through us, the people who sent us here are despised. After all, we on this side of the House represents 44 per cent. of the nation, and together with the Prime Minister's supporters who have taken part in the Debate to-day and who have, roughly speaking, taken the same view as we have on this matter, we must represent very nearly, if not fully, 50 per cent. of the citizens of this country, who, like the other 50 per cent. who are enthusiastically in support of the Prime Minister, will be called on to risk their lives if war should come. The Prime Minister cannot suggest, in relation to the 50 per cent. whom we represent, as against the 50 per cent. who support him, that we and our supporters have always been wrong and that he and his supporters have always been right.
It is childish for the Prime Minister and his loyal supporters to pretend that he was anything except absolutely and utterly wrong when, steadily and consistently throughout the years 1935 to 1938, he mocked and derided us because we tried to convince him that the way to secure peace was to build up a peace front of nations desiring peace against the aggressor nations. The Prime Minister cannot pretend that he was anything except absolutely and utterly wrong when he mocked us because we did not think that he could woo Mussolini out of the Axis by offering him Spain. If the Prime Minister wants that national unity without which we shall not avoid a war, or win a war if we should be involved in one, he should really try in his


speeches to show that he understands that we do represent fellow citizens of his just as much as he represents fellow citizens of ours.
If he will realise that, I submit to him, through his Cabinet colleagues who are now present, that, if a position arises in which the Leader of the Official Opposition asks for the reassembly of Parliament, and if at approximately the same time, on the same date and a few hours afterwards, the Leader of the party to which I belong asks for the reassembly of Parliament, and if, shortly afterwards, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Prime Minister's party, some of whom have taken part in the Debate this evening, ask for the reassembly of Parliament—if, therefore, the representatives of 50 per cent. of the people of this country ask for an opportunity to be heard in Parliament—the Prime Minister cannot, and will not, turn down such a demand so supported; I submit that he will not back his personal judgment against the judgment of the representatives of half of the nation; and that if they say, "We, the responsible representatives chosen by our constituents, feel that things are going badly, that we are slipping down the slope to war, that there is danger of a war in which we and our supporters will have to fight and die, and before we reach that point we ask for an opportunity to be heard," surely, the Prime Minister cannot say that such a request will again be turned down.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: I regret the acrimonious tone of this Debate, which has done no credit to Parliament. To me, the position is quite plain. We either sit continuously from day to day from this week, or we do as the Prime Minister has suggested and meet at his discretion. I cannot see any other alternative. The arbitrary date suggested by the Opposition seems to me to have no virtue. One might as well say it should be 10th August, 28th August or any other date chosen at random. It is a purely arbitrary date, and if the prophecies that have been made to-day prove to be of substance, there is no telling whether Parliament should not be recalled long before 21st August. To suggest a fixed date of 21st August or 22nd August, as the case may be, and to reassemble, business or

no business, seems to me to be sheer nonsense.

Mr. Gallacher: Mr. Gallacher rose—

Mr. Magnay: I will not give way to the hon. Member, for no one would give way to me when I wanted to interrupt. In his reply, the Prime Minister said what I, at any rate, was not surprised to hear. In what the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Harold Macmillan) called an adroit speech, the Prime Minister did not answer the mistakes of the Opposition; in my opinion, he answered the accusations of the Opposition—a vastly different thing. One hon. Member opposite after another said quite frankly that he did not trust the Prime Minister and would not trust him in any event. I suggest to the House, as I would suggest to any reasonable gathering of people, that if a man comes to you, be you Prime Minister or not, and says that he does not believe your word and will not believe it in any event, then you must go your own way. The Prime Minister is the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said that the Government rested here. So it does. The country knows that. If any mistake is made, there will be a way and a time in due course for the country to rectify it.

Mr. Alexander: As at Brecon.

Mr. Magnay: These are but the ups and downs of life. The electoral temperature goes up and down, but we do not take any very serious notice of it. I submit that we either have to trust the managing director or not trust him, and I would not have intervened in the Debate were it not for the fact that all the people who are easily discontented with the Government, but who are supposed to be supporters of the Government, seem to have spoken against the Prime Minister during the last hour or two. I am certain that, speaking for the North, supporting the Government—[An Hon. Member: "What North? "]. Everybody in the North knows the name of Magnay. The hon. Member may not be known by his baptismal name, but I am. The supporters of the Government in the North trust the managing director.
What happened here last September? The same people whom we have seen waving their Order Papers here to-day, almost went down on their knees then in thankfulness to the Prime Minister. We


saw the looks of relief in their faces when the Prime Minister said that he did not intend to "cash in" on his success then—the whole world being the judges of what he had done. The very same people whose relieved faces we saw then are now expressing distrust of the Prime Minister. What else do they expect the Prime Minister to do but to stand for his honour and to say, "If you do not trust me I will take care of myself and I, as the Leader of the Government, expect my friends to follow me"? That is just what hon. Members of the Opposition would be expected to do by their own leaders, and whether they liked it or not, they would have to sign on the dotted line. It is only fair and reasonable that the Prime Minister should expect those who support him in the Government and in the country, to support him to-night in the Division Lobby.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. John Morgan: I want to pay my tribute to the courageous speech of the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland). It was a speech such as I do not expect to hear again in this House for some time. It was not the speech of a man who was stabbing his own party in the back, though it might be so interpreted in some quarters. I do not want to go into that aspect of it at all. I regard it as the speech of a man who has consistently, in this House—and we have watched him—tried to gather together all the elements in this House that could get the backing of the country, for the purpose of facing the situation which we have to face. It was a speech which indicated what the quality of this Debate ought to have been, but I feel that the last contribution to the Debate showed signs of succumbing to the poison which the hon. Member himself was denouncing. I am very sorry that the Debate got to that level, even with the hon. Member. I feel that the only way in which we can answer the issue raised in this Debate is to ask ourselves: What would the country as a whole think of us if we were to decide, even if only in principle, to come back earlier from our holidays than the Prime Minister proposes?
Would the country think better of us if we took a decision of that kind to-day? I believe they would. I believe the people would think more of this House as an institution and have a greater respect for

us as a political force, if we took that course, which would reflect the views of the country at large. That should be the sole test of our behaviour here to-day. Would the country as a whole think better of us and of the service which we can render if we were to take such a stand? The people of this country are as uneasy as most of us to-day. They have probably a more perceptive instinct than we have and they recognise that Herr Hitler has already taken his holidays. They ask why should be want to take his holidays in June and July? Probably, they say, in order to get down to business in August and September. That is the general feeling of the man in the street and he sees us about to go on our holidays, just when Herr Hitler is about to get to work. That is putting the matter in a nutshell. The public mind would have been more satisfied if people knew that we were anticipating such a manoeuvre and were showing a greater readiness than hon. Members opposite have shown to take the proper steps to meet those activities abroad.
I believe that the Prime Minister in his second speech to-night was not directing his attack at hon. Members on this side. I believe the right hon. Gentleman sensed a breakaway on his own side and a lack of party loyalty on his own benches and that he issued a kind of ultimatum. His speech was not directed towards reproving our attitude. He was exercising a strict party control over those Members who had attempted to express views different from those in his own mind and those reflected by his decision in this matter. But the right hon. Gentleman's words aroused a speech of a kind that will live long in the memory of this House, in spite of the way in which the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) dealt with it. The hon. Member for Moseley showed the extremely possessive sense of some hon. Members opposite in reference to Parliamentary seats. First he spoke of the constituency of the hon. Member for King's Norton as if it were his own and then he talked about "my own city of Birmingham." It is fortunate that a new voice is about to be heard in this House on behalf of Wales and hardly any hon. Member opposite will now lay claim to any proprietary rights in that part of the British electorate.
There is no good in attempting to dismiss the speech of the hon. Member for King's Norton as the hon. Member for Moseley sought to do. That speech reflects a very fine spirit. It is the kind of speech which, if responded to in this House, would do more good, would give public opinion more reason to believe in this House as an institution, and would make a better contribution to the national spirit than the Prime Minister's second speech. That, I believe, will be the reflection of most hon. Members tomorrow morning. I think they will realise the anxiety of the public in seeing Parliament break up for such a long period at this time; they will realise that the Prime Minister to-night has behaved in a strictly party sense and that that is not the mood of the moment in this country.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I have been attempting to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker for the last 4½hours and I hope the House will not think it ungracious of me if I attempt to detain them for a few minutes longer on this subject. In his concluding speech the Prime Minister turned this vote into one of confidence in himself and his Government. I regret that my right hon. Friend has done so, but as a supporter of the Government I feel that I have no alternative but to answer that call from the leader of the Government. I therefore propose to vote for the Government this evening but I wish to put it on record that I regard the Government's action as a mistake. I think it was a mistake to suggest that Parliament should, at this time, adjourn for eight weeks. It seems to me, if I may respectfully say so, a still greater mistake that my right hon. Friend towards the end of a Debate which has already lasted over four hours should persist in that view.
Up to the time of the Prime Minister's second speech only two speakers in any part of the House had supported the Government. One was the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) and the other was the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). We like both hon. Members personally and we admire the sincerity with which they express their views but we know that they represent, not the great majority of Government supporters but the small group of diehard

Tories in this House. They opposed and attacked the Government and in particular my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Government were carrying through great constitutional reforms for India. They have made the Prime Minister's course in this Parliament difficult whenever he was progressive and indeed representing the national view. It is significant that the only two Members on the Government side who to-day, after the Prime Minister's speech, have supported the Government's attitude are those two hon. Members. Their views are not representative of the Government parties. With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, I do not think they understand the real feelings of their own Members upon this matter. I believe that if they were to interview their own Members individually, they would find, as indeed this Debate shows, that the great majority of us on this side would like the Prime Minister to have made some concession. [Hon. Members: "No! "] Well, that is the view which I take, and I contend that the course of this Debate proves it to be well founded.
Is it too late for the Government to consider some way of meeting what I regard as almost an 80 per cent. view of this House of Commons, and, as I understand it, almost an 80 per cent. view of the country? What is that view? It is that at a moment when all of us, and particularly the people outside, think that war may come next week, or the week after, or the week after that, this is not the time for Parliament to rise and to go away, scattering throughout the world, for two months. The Prime Minister did not even make an appeal to us to-day, as he might properly have done, at least to stay within the shores of this country. There was no suggestion that we should be doing our duty by biding here at Westminster. Some of us may be going abroad, to America, South Africa, or anywhere else. Is that right at this time? The country and the House of Commons having, as I think, in such plain terms expressed the view which they hold on this subject, is it not the duty of the Government in this democratic Assembly to accede to that view?
I see sitting on the Treasury Bench the Minister for Air. I remember in this House a series of Debates, and one Debate


in particular, in which the House obviously was dissatisfied with the management of the Air Ministry. We had questions for days and weeks upon that matter, and there was a Debate raised by an hon. Member on the Government side, after which the Government were compelled by the views of this House to accept a new view. They had to reverse their own decision. The Government did so then graciously, because they felt it their duty to accede to the wishes of this Chamber. There have been innumerable occasions on which the Government have so acceded to the views of this House, and I have taken pride in my constituency in citing these examples to show that this Government is not a dictatorship, but that it meets, as far as it can, the generally expressed opinion of this Assembly. There has never been, in my six years in this House, a Debate in which there has been a nearer approach to unanimity of opinion than to-day. I repeat that up to the time of the Prime Minister's second speech only two out of, I think, 21 speeches favoured the Government's policy.

Sir H. Croft: It is quite clear that the vast majority of the supporters of the Government were quite satisfied with the Prime Minister's speech, and is it not a fact that the discordant voices are only those which have consistently since Munich opposed the Government?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I do not want to go into the question of the Munich Agreement. I voted for it with some difficulty, but questions of confidence in the Prime Minister or personal issues of any kind have for me nothing to do with the matter now under discussion. They do not seem to me to apply at all. [Interruption.] I am putting what I believe is a good House of Commons view. I desire to be regarded as a good House of Commons man, and it is the House of Commons view, and that view alone, that I seek to put to-night. The Government, having received a very widely expressed opinion, they should at this time do something to meet that view. It would be well if, from to-night's Debate, there went out to the world another victory for Parliament. Would that be anything dishonourable? On the contrary, it would be a great honour for democracy if at a moment when dictatorship is undermining freedom in many lands, this House were to register to-night a

victory over the Executive. The Executive could meet that victory with grace and with honour, and I beg my right hon. Friends somehow to enable us to do what is right by Parliament on this solemn occasion.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. G. Nicholson: I claim to be as good a House of Commons man as my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), and I do not wish this Debate to finish on the note that he has struck. I would give anything at this moment to have some prestige in this House, because I believe that it needs a speech on the lines that Lord Haldane used to give the House to recall hon. Members to the solemnity of the occasion on which we meet, to recall to the House the real need for national unity at this time, but not that national unity that has been exemplified by those who have spoken for it to-day. They seem to me to be like the young men one reads about in the papers, who hit their young ladies over the head with a brick in order to make them love them. I think that national unity means real sacrifices, and I suggest to the House that, at a time when we may be on the very brink of the abyss, this House has disgraced itself and done shameful work to-day in appealing to the hatred and the bitterness that have been aroused. I feel that very strongly.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has, I admit, committed a most awful crime. He has made up his mind and stuck to his opinion, a frightful crime. Hon. Members on all sides of the House are entitled to differ from the Prime Minister, but I submit that if hon. Members have a due sense of the solemnity of the occasion and of the gravity of the peril in which we stand, they will to-morrow morning regret the attitude that they have taken in this Debate. I shall try to show my desire and my zeal for national unity by backing up the man who, after all, has our lives in his hands in his determination to stick to his opinion. I have been critical of the Prime Minister very often, but on this occasion I believe that national unity calls for all of us to submit our personal judgment to the desire expressed by the man who has our destinies in his hands. I hope hon. Members will forgive me when I say that if


it has done nothing else, the Debate today has shown that hon. Members on all sides of the House have been lacking in their usual judgment.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) has referred to the solemnity of the occasion, and remembering my surname, I think I should take some part in this great solemnity. Inside this House we have heard to-day many voices which have claimed to be the authentic voices of various districts. We have had one hon. Member representing one of the Birmingham seats talking as if he represented Birmingham alone, and yet in this Debate we have had two speeches from representatives of Birmingham Divisions, one from the right hon. Member for the Sparkbrook Division (Mr. Amery) and the other from the hon. Member for the King's Norton Division (M. Cartland), which were diametrically opposed to the speech of the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Sir P. Hannon). The Prime Minister also speaks as a representative of one of the Birmingham seats. So the Birmingham representatives have scored two goals each and it is a draw. Then another hon. Member got up and claimed, in a loud voice, that he was the voice of the north. One or two of my friends say that might mean that he was the voice of the North Pole. I come from the north. I have 10 colleagues in this House who come from the north, from Durham County. I claim that I can speak on behalf of Durham County and that no one can say me nay. The voice of the 11 Members representing Durham County in this House, Socialist Members, is against this proposal of the Prime Minister to have an extended holiday.
We believe that we are in for another Munich. This Government ran away from collective security and now it is crawling back to it. This Government has dawdled and diddled along the road to a peace bloc with Russia. We in Durham County are not satisfied that the Prime Minister and the Government intend to be in earnest on that matter, or why all this great delay? So I could not let the opportunity pass without replying to the voice of the north by letting this House and the country know that as far as Durham County is concerned it is a case

of "Once bitten, twice shy." Whe were "once bitten" last year over the Munich question, and we want to be present this time to prevent being bitten a second time. Now that I have referred to the voices in this House may I draw attention to voices outside this House? In Colne Valley and at Brecon voices outside this House have shown that they have no trust in this Government. Therefore, many of the people of the country, having no trust in the Government, will not be satisfied if we go away on an extended holiday.

9.8 p.m.

Commander Bower: I have never spoken very long in this House, and tonight I propose to speak for only a couple of minutes, but as one of those who was opposed to the Government upon Munich I think that perhaps I have a right to say one or two words. Last year I took no exception to what the Prime Minister did in that tragic week in September, but I did take exception to the foreign policy which led up to those events, and I am a little bit afraid that something of that sort might happen again, although after what has happened to-day and the general sense of the House which has been expressed I really do not take that danger very seriously. I think that Parliament was called together much too late last year, but after to-day's Debate I cannot help feeling there is no danger of that happening again. There is one thing that, I think, everybody in this country realises, and that is that there can never be another Munich. The country would never stand for it—whether it be a Munich ever Danzig or a yellow one in the Far East. But I do not want to talk too much about Munich. I regard that as one of those far off, unhappy things which are much better forgotten.
But I do want to suggest one thing to my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, and that is that it is perfectly fatuous to suppose that national unity exists at the moment. Does it? We go to our constituencies—I know my constituency very well; I represent a part of the world I have known all my life—and we know it does not exist, and it is folly on the part of the Central Office or anybody else to suppose that it does, and we may as well face the fact. There is certainly a great measure of agreement


on our foreign policy, but there is a distinct measure of disagreement as to the methods employed in carrying it out and whether the present Government are best fitted to carry it out. Personally, I think that they are far better fitted to carry it out than anybody else. I have not always been whole-hearted in my support of the Government's foreign policy, but to-day I feel that they are, taking it by and large, the better fitted to carry it out. There I will leave it.
I want to add this, that as one of those who have been very much concerned about the Government's policy and has insistently advocated a stronger line—like many hon. Members on this side of the House I have got into trouble for it in my constituency—I find that lately I have not been getting into trouble over it nearly so much as was the case a short time ago. I hate saying "I told you so," and I am not going to say it. Tonight the Prime Minister has said that this is virtually a matter of confidence. Like my hon. Friend who sits below me, I am very sorry indeed that the Prime Minister has said so, and I propose to follow him into the Lobby to-night; but before doing so I want to express my regret that he has made this a question of confidence, because I do not think it ought to have been, and I am going into that Lobby with the Government to-night only because of that fact.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: I—[Hon. Members: "Divide"]—I am not one who frequently exercises the privilege of addressing this House, and I hope that I may ask for the courtesy, which I know I shall receive, of a hearing for two or three minutes. I fully realise the desire of hon. Members, expressed so frequently, that a Division should be taken, but as the Debate has gone on for so long I trust I may be privileged to make one or two observations. I hope that I shall not be thought disrespectful in what I am going to say, but when the Prime Minister was speaking, and realising the gravity and danger of the situation, my mind harked back to another historic occasion in this House many years ago when a Prime Minister told a gentleman who had set up a case of rather doubtful quality, "Cease this fooling." I rather felt, when the Prime Minister was speaking to-day, that he had not a full sense of the grave

seriousness of the occasion. This Debate will possibly rank as a historic Debate in the annals of this country. It may equally rank as a tragic Debate. The situation is much too grave for us to trust ourselves in the hands of any one man. Our claim is that if great decisions are to be made they should be made by Parliament itself and not by any one man or set of men.
It is because we on this side of the House, as well as hon. and right hon. Members in other parts of the House, fear that the situation may so develop that before Parliament can be brought together not only may tragic decisions be taken but grave steps may be taken that we feel that we are not asking a great deal in putting forward this Amendment. We understand and appreciate that the Prime Minister and his Ministers will be in session in London during the next few weeks. All we ask him is that they shall have the opportunity of getting the advice and, if need be, the support of Parliament in any steps that may be necessary. The speech of the Prime Minister—if I may say so as one who comes from Birmingham and has a great love for the city—made me wonder how it would have been regarded by his father, who loved his country so well. The speech was largely one of carping criticism of the statements that had been made. I submit that those who have urged on all sides of the House that Parliament should be called together have not done it in any party sense, but in the desire to serve the wellbeing of the country and the interests of the whole nation.
We have been told within the last few minutes that we have to trust the one man, but I think that the Prime Minister has demonstrated that he has not sensed the real feeling of the country on this matter. Can we, therefore, assume that he will sense the real feeling of the country, when a great crisis has arrived? He said that the security of the Government rested on the confidence of the House, but I submit, with all humility, that the security of the country rests with this House showing its lack of confidence in the Government. We have to encourage the people of the country to believe that Parliament is alive and alert, and is looking after the interests of the country. Can the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that if we go into Recess


the people of the country will think that Parliament is doing its duty? What we have asked is that Parliament shall be assembled so that it will give full weight of authority to any grave decisions which may have to be made. We all

sincerely trust that the crisis will pass, but if the crisis comes upon us Parliament should be asembled to deal with it.

Question put, "That 'Tuesday, 3rd October' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 132.

Division No. 293.]
AYES.
[9.19 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Dunglass, Lord
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Albery, Sir Irving
Eastwood, J. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Assheton, R.
Errington, E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Magnay, T.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Maitland, Sir Adam


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Fleming, E. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Markham, S. F.


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Marsden, Commander A.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Furness, S. N.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Beechman, N. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Bernays, R. H.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Bird, Sir R. B.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Blair, Sir R.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Boulton, W. W.
Granville, E. L.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Bower. Comdr. R. T.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Munro, P.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Nall, Sir J.


Brabner, R. A.
Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Brass, Sir W.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hambro, A. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Hammersley, S. S.
Peat, C. U.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hannah, I. C.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Petherick, M.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Harbord, Sir A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bull, B. B.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pilkington, R.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Porritt, R. W.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Procter, Major H. A,


Butcher, H. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Purbrick, R.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Higgs, W. F.
Pym, L. R.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Radford, E. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Cary, R. A.
Holmes, J. S.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Channon, H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rankin, Sir R.


Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Remer, J. R.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Jennings, R.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Keeling, E. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Kellett, Major E. O.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Critchley, A.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Cross, R. H.
Kimball, L.
Salt, E. W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Scott, Lord William


Davidson, Viscountess
Latham, Sir P.
Selley, H. R.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Shakespeare, G. H


De Chair, S. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


De la Bère, R.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Levy, T.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Denville, Alfred
Liddall, W. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Donner, P. W.
Lindsay, K. M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Smithers, Sir W.


Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. C.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Snadden, W. McN.


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, G. W.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Loftus, P. C.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R, J.




Spens, W. P.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Touche, G. C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Storey, S.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Wakefield, W. W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
York, C.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Warrender, Sir V.



Sutcliffe, H.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tate, Mavis C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Captain Waterhouse and Major


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wells, Sir Sydney
Sir James Edmondson.


Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.





NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Hell, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Poole, C. C.


Adams, D. (Consatt)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Price, M. P.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hardie, Agnes
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Alaxander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'tsbr.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Hicks, E. G.
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefrast)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Batey, J.
Hollins, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Hopkinson, A.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bellenger, F. J.
Horabin, T. L.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jagger, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
John, W.
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, L.


Cape. T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Sloan, A.


Collindridge, F.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dalton, H.
Lee, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Tomlinson, G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mander, G. le M.
Walkden, A. G.


Evans, D. 0. (Cardigan)
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Foot, D. M.
Messer, F.
White, H. Graham


Gallacher, W.
Milner, Major J.
Whiteley, W. (Blayden)


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilmot, John


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Owen, Major G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.



Guest, Dr. L. H. (lslington, N.)
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pearson, A.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.

Question put,

" That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Tuesday, 3rd October; provided that if it is represented to Mr. Speaker by His Majesty's Government that the public. interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the Adjournment, and Mr. Speaker is satisfied that the public interest does so require, he may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and the Government Business to be transacted on the day on which the House shall so meet shall, subject to the publication of notice thereof in the Order Paper to be circulated on the day on which the House shall so meet, be such as the Government may

appoint, but subject as aforesaid the House shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to the day on which it shall so meet, and any Government Orders of the Day and Government Notices of Motions that may stand on the Order Book for the 3rd day of October or any subsequent day shall be appointed for the day on which the House shall so meet; provided also that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause the Chairman of Ways and Means, in his capacity as Deputy-Speaker, be authorised to act in his stead for the purposes of this Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 129.

Division No. 294.]
AYES.
[9.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Petherick, M.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Gower, Sir R. V.
Pilkington, R.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Porritt, R. W.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Granville, E. L.
Procter, Major H. A.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Purbrick, R.


Assheton, R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pym, L. R.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grimston, R. V.
Radford, E. A.


Baillie. Sir A. W. M.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Hambro, A. V.
Rankin, Sir R.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Hammersley, S. S.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Hannah, I. C.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Beechman, N. A.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Bernays, R. H.
Harbord, Sir A.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Remer, J. R.


Blair, Sir R.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Boulton, W. W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Higgs, W. F.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Brabner, R. A.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brass, Sir W.
Holmes, J. S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Salmon, Sir I.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Horsbrugh, Florence
Salt, E. W.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Scott, Lord William


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Selley, H. R.


Bull, B. B.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Jennings, R.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Butcher, H. W.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Kellett, Major E. O.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Carver, Major W. H.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smithers, Sir W.


Cary, R. A.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Snadden, W. McN.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Channon, H.
Kimball, L.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spens, W. P.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Latham, Sir P.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Colman, N. C. D.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Storey, S.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Conant, Captain R. J. E
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Strauss, H. G (Norwich)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Levy, T.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Liddall, W. S.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Critchley, A.
Lindsay, K. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cross, R. H.
Lloyd, G. W.
Tate, Mavis C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Loftus. P. C.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Davidson, Viscountess
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Davison, Sir W. H.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Touche, G. C.


De Chair, S. S.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


De la Bère, R.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wakefield, W. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Denville, Alfred
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Donner, P. W.
Magnay, T.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Warrender, Sir V.


Drewe, C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Markham, S. F.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Marsden, Commander A.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Dunglass, Lord
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Eastwood, J. F.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Errington, E.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Nall, Sir J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fildes, Sir H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fleming, E. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J,
York, C.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh



Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Furness, S. N.
Peat, C. U.
Mr. Munro and Major Sir James


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Edmondson.




NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pearson, A.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Poole, C. C.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hardie, Agnes
Price, M. P.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Hicks, E. G.
Riley, B.


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Hollins, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Beaumont, H, (Batley)
Horabin, T. L.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bellenger, F. J.
Jagger, J.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jenkine, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevan, A.
John, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silkin, L.


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Silverman, S. S.


Cluse. W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Collindridge, F.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sloan, A.


Cove, W. G.
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Dalton, H.
Lee, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Stephen, C.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tomlinson, G.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mander, G. le M.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mathers, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Foot, D. M.
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
White, H. Graham


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Garro Jones, G. M.
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilmot, John


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hamsworth)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Groves, T. E.
Owen, Major G.



Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: We now proceed to the Orders of the Day. This is not a new experience for those who take part in education Debates in this House, because I believe that the fate of the Education Estimates has, at least throughout this Parliament, been consistently unfortunate. Every one of our discussions has been truncated, although never quite so truncated as is the case to-day. In these circumstances, I do not intend to deal with the rather general range of topics that I had prepared for myself,

but shall confine myself almost entirely to what I consider to be the most important document issued from the Board of Education this year, that is to say, the report of the Consultative Committee—the Spens Report. The House will perhaps excuse me if I deal with it rather technically, although we shall all understand if the Parliamentary Secretary finds it necessary to take a rather wider range.
The report, I suppose, may be regarded as the most important survey of our system of secondary education since the Hadow Report of 1926, and was intended to be its successor. I do not think it is likely to occupy the same place in our educational history as the Hadow Report. In the first place, it is about three times as long as was necessary to expound the proposals and ideas that it contains; and, secondly, the Hadow Report made a new invention, the senior schools, which have been universally adopted, whereas I shall endeavour to give my reasons for thinking that the


parallel new invention of the Spens Report, namely, the technical high school, is likely to be stillborn. To myself and my hon. Friends, the most striking feature of the Spens Report is perhaps the fact that it codifies a large number of ideas in the realm of technical education which have been in the minds of educational thinkers for many years.
The Labour Government some years ago coined the slogan "Secondary education for all." By that was meant, not, that every child should go to a secondary school, but that, whether the child went to a secondary school, or a senior school, or a central school, the education received should be of the same quality, with the same regulations, the same qualifications of teachers, the same code, the same expenditure per head, and the same school-leaving age of 16. What we really meant was a secondary standard of education for all, and we have always maintained that that was implicit in the intention of the Hadow Report. That view is accepted up to the hilt by the Spens Committee. Indeed, they themselves have spoken of "schools of a secondary stage." I do not think that that is as good a term as ours, but, nevertheless, it sets the stamp of semi-official approval upon a series of proposals which a number of my hon. Friends, whose fund of educational experience is vast, have been making for the last 20 years.
I come now to my reasons for there mark I made about what, after all, is the main new contribution of the Spens Report, namely, the proposal for a technical high school, which is to stand side by side with the secondary school. The Consultative Committee have evidently been very greatly impressed by the junior technical schools, of which there are, not a great many, but a certain number scattered throughout the country. These are schools to which boys—not girls—go at the age, not of 11, but of 13, and where they are given what is really a semi-specialised form of education. They are taught metalwork, woodwork, mechanical drawing and science, and about a quarter of their time, or perhaps rather less, is given to general educational subjects like history, English and geography. These schools are always attached to a senior technical institute, so that they have the staff of the institute, the buildings

of the institute, and the actual machines of the institute at their service. I went round a number of these schools, particularly in London, when I was at the Board, and it is the case that the boys there were full of interest and enjoyment.
Of course, however, the fact has to be borne in mind that they had jobs waiting for them at the end of this course. In fact, the; intention is to fill these schools with scholarship boys, and the London County Council, and, I believe, other local authorities, regard it as an obligation to find these boys jobs when they are sent to the technical school. I can quite understand that an educational training of this kind for a boy of 13 who has a job waiting for him may be fully justified, but I do not agree with the Spens Committee that a parallel can be drawn between such a boy and boys and girls in general at the age of 11, and that you can take boys of 11, before they have had any secondary education, and segregate them into these schools, irrespective of the fact that they may have different types of mind. Indeed, it appears to me to be very unsuitable to send children of 11 to a school where they work under the shadow of vast masses of machinery—in such a whirl of machinery that you cannot hear yourself speak—and under teachers whose whole principle is to specialise on getting quicker results by practical application, which is not suitable for young children. For these reasons, I think these young children of 11 would be far better in a special side of a secondary school. I know that the argument is that the secondary school may be too large, but most of the public schools in this country—Charterhouse, Rugby, Eton and others—have from 800 to 1,000 boys, and it is easy to solve the problem of the large school by a tutorial system.
There is another defect about these schools. I am afraid they would not be regarded as having the same status as secondary schools. The secondary schools, by their prestige, would be regarded by parents as a superior type of education. Also, I do not think the same amount of money would be spent on them. The result is that you would increase class distinction in secondary education. You would have three types


of schools: secondary schools, training boys for black-coated occupations; technical high schools, in which the boys would be expected to become foremen and technical workers; and then the senior schools, for other jobs which are available. For these reasons, I am pretty well convinced that this proposal for technical high schools will soon be seen to be one of those educational balloons which are set flying from time to time and which in a few months disappear from our sight and memory.
Some of the most valuable conclusions of the report are those which deal with the actual curriculum of the secondary schools. It is clear throughout the report that they think that the curriculum of the secondary school has lost touch with the actual life which the majority of the boys and girls will have to lead. I have said in previous Debates that I think that, and I have given a reason which I think is proved up to the hilt by this report. Only a small fraction of these boys and girls go to the universities, and yet all the remaining 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. have forced upon them a form of education specially adapted to this small minority. The reason for that I explained four or five years ago. It is this disastrous mistake, which was made some years ago, of linking up the matriculation examination for universities with the school certificate examination for children leaving secondary schools at 16 or 17. We must now retrace our steps. The school certificate examination was intended to be a final examination which average boys or girls of 16 or 17 could take in their stride, without having their minds oppressed by it. It was linked up with the matriculation examination, with the result that, instead of the curriculum determining the examination, this university matriculation examination has determined the curriculum of all our secondary schools, and wrenched it out of its natural and sensible form.
Not only has it done that, but it has meant over-pressure. Over-pressure is the curse of secondary schools. They are not comparable for actual happiness with elementary schools and with senior schools, which have not this external examination system. We are producing, as a result of this, a conscientious, industrious, disciplined race, but we are grinding the initiative out of them. We

are making the same mistake as that made by Germany and France, which we have always prided ourselves in this country on having avoided. Let the universities use the matriculation examination for their own entrants; let the secondary schools go back to providing for the average boys and girls of 16, and let the headmasters and headmistresses develop their curricula for those boys and girls. I have always felt that educational reforms which require vast sums are going to take some time to get implemented, but here is a reform which costs nothing, and which I believe will have more far-reaching effects than have been anticipated.
There is a whole world of new proposals moving in the minds of educational thinkers, waiting to be released as soon as the dead hand of matriculation has been removed from these schools. This has shown itself to me already. When I used to go round these schools I was always surprised, and rather shocked in most cases, at the enormous amount of the life of a boy or girl which was spent in learning French. About one-fifth of the boys' and girls' time is spent in learning French, which at the end they can neither speak, write nor understand. The Spens Committee, in their report, have now dealt with that subject, and it is clear that this enormous amount of time spent in learning French will be either abandoned or modified, and that there will be time for children to learn something concerning their own surroundings or areas, to develop their own societies, and to think for themselves.
There is one other subject of a rather technical kind dealt with in this report on which I would like to say a few words, because I do not think it has been more ventilated in the House. The report, which proposed technical high schools, suggested that, in order that they might have the highest educational advantages they should be free from the incubus of an external examination, and claimed that, as a result, they would give better teaching than schools subject to either matriculation or the school certificate examination conducted by external teachers. I must say that for a good many years I took the view, which appeared to me to be common sense, that no school would be really efficient unless there was a stiff external examination,


conducted by teachers unconnected with the school, which all the children would have to pass. I took that view rather readily for many years, and it seems fairly obvious to many people still. I changed my mind when I went round a number of the new senior schools where at that time there were no external examinations. I noticed that the boys and girls in those schools worked with immense interest, even with intensity, and with enjoyment, which the external examination frequently destroyed.
You do not need an external examination if the school is thoroughly efficiently run internally from A to Z. Boys and girls at that age are naturally active, and the modern technique of teaching has discovered how to harness that activity to existing school work, with the result that, with a proper system of inspection by the Board, and of the school records, and with internal tests, you will get just as high a standard as at any external examination and leave teachers with some time to give to education for its own sake. I am not going to suggest that we should remove the external examination from the secondary schools, because we are now experimenting in the form of examination rather than in its removal. I have mentioned this subject because I desire to give the Parliamentary Secretary and the advisers of the Board a warning which I feel may be necessary.
It will be a profound pity and a mistake if the system of external examinations clamps its grip upon the new senior schools. The danger is there. Many directors of education complained to me that they were finding it difficult to resist the demand for an external examination in senior schools. The demand came from parents who wanted their children to have a certificate to take away with them. Let them have a certificate, but let it be one given by internal examination and based on school records. I should like to see the system made impossible by which children in senior schools leaving at the age of 15 ask for the school certificate. You will have a worse over-pressure than that of which we are complaining in the secondary schools. You will have a system by which children of 15 are being forced to try and work for examinations intended for rather cleverer children of 16 and 17 years of age.
I would like to turn to another subject in connection with elementary education because of the figures with regard to the physical condition of the new militiamen which have recently been very widely quoted. I have for many years complained that the figures published by the Board of Education with regard to the physical condition of children are utterly misleading. The figures taken from the last report of the condition of nutrition of school children are: excellent, 15 per cent.; normal, 74 per cent.; slightly subnormal, 10 per cent.; bad, 7 or only about 1 in 150. These figures are completely contradicted by the medical profession, and especially by the medical experts who are developing the new science of nutrition, one of the most valuable contributions to the health of the child. There was in another place a fortnight ago a Debate in which Lord Dawson of Penn said that it was impossible to gainsay the fact that from 22 to 25 per cent. of the children of this country are not receiving the diet appropriate to their age or necessary for their proper development. When you have that kind of authority, which is merely repeating the figures of the British Medical Association and the experts on nutrition, saying that about a quarter of the children do not have the diet necessary for their proper development, how can the Board of Education go on issuing their figures showing that only 1 in 150 suffers from bad nutrition and only 10 per cent. of the children are slightly subnormal.
There is the contradiction which must be explained. The explanation is, I think, generally known. The doctors who make these examinations take as their standard of what is normal the average children in the area in which they live. It is not surprising, therefore, that they find that the majority of them are normal, and only about 10 per cent. of them slightly sub-normal and that only one out of 150 is in a bad condition of nutrition. Sir John Orr, Lord Dawson of Penn and others have pointed out that the whole of the average represents under-nutrition. If you take Sir John Orr's optimum of nutrition of children living under the best possible conditions, such as boys at Eton, Harrow, Winchester and Charterhouse, you get 90 per cent. sub-normal and only a few reaching normal. I point this out because the


militiamen who have been examined show that the physical condition of the young people of the country is very satisfactory. There is some danger of our being a little too complacent about what these figures actually show. On the Saturday that conscription was introduced I went to a regimental depot and saw these militiamen being received and medically examined. They were obviously of a very different physical standard from boys of the same age say 25 years ago, but if you took Sir John Orr's optimum and the standard of the boys from Eton, Harrow or Charterhouse, I say that 90 per cent. of the boys I saw would be below the standard that should be reached by those who were brought up under the best possible conditions.
It is important that the public should not be misled. The figures that have been quoted to the public of examination of militiamen are these—Grade I, 83 per cent.; Grade II, 9 per cent. Those are the ones that are taken for ordinary service. That gives 92 per cent. who have passed the physical test. If you look at the instructions given to the doctors as to what these grades mean, you will find exactly the same phenomenon as in the case of the medical inspection of school children. They were told to take the normal healthy boys of that age as Grade I.
 Grade I, those who attain the full normal standard of health. Grade II, those who do not reach the standard of Grade I but are able to undergo considerable physical exertion not involving severe strain. They must have fair hearing and vision, and must not suffer from any progressive organic disease.
That is not a particularly high standard, and the fact that 92 per cent. are able to pass is not a cause for any undue complacency. There was a close examination of these figures in the "Times" yesterday by Sir Ronald Davison. I should like to read what he said:
These figures do not justify any complacency over the health of the nation in all its age groups. Undoubtedly a great burden of subnormal health, warped bodies and downright sickness is still incurred between the ages 21 and 50. Most of this is unnecessary and due to industrial conditions, unwise habits and poverty. An ample agenda of reform lies ahead and will tax all our energies.
The first reform is to take the advice of the medical profession, who have examined

this problem, and to ascertain—they have ascertained for you—the average income of a family below which it is impossible to bring up children under conditions of full health and strength. Take that as your standard and ensure, by milk or by meals, that all the children in the school from those families shall receive the food necessary to give them the best possible condition of vitality. I doubt whether you can calculate the effect of this in a comparatively short time, because I am convinced that there is no more important element in the health of children than their actual physical intake of food, which builds up the very bodies, blood, bones, sinews and muscles of which they are made up. This simple reform in school feeding by the Board of Education would, I believe, be one of those changes which would effect in a short time a revolutionary result with a comparatively modest expenditure of money.

10.9 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: It is very pleasant to leave the stormy atmosphere of the international problem for the comparatively peaceful atmosphere of education. But it is somewhat remarkable that, with the vast sums involved and the large population affected, we have only some two or three hours at the end of a very long Session to discuss this problem. It is amazing that the direction of a Department which so intimately affects the lives of the people is in the hands of a Minister who is not a Member of this House. We have a worthy substitute and a very competent Parliamentary Secretary but, with great respect to him, the responsible Minister, who is a Member of the Cabinet, should be in the House of Commons. That applies particularly because this is the third Minister in this Parliament who has not been a Member of this House. Lord Halifax, of course, had particular qualifications. He was an ex-Minister and distinguished himself very much in that capacity when in this House. Lord Stanhope had no experience, and after a few months he was transferred to a new post. Now we have a new Minister, no doubt energetic but with no experience of this problem, and I suppose that in a few months he will be transferred to another post. It is used as a convenient position when it is necessary to reorganise the Cabinet. At a time like this I maintain that the local education authorities


have a right to demand energetic leadership.
This year we are going to take an important step in education. Nineteen hundred and thirty-nine is the appointed year. We have had plenty of time to get ready—three years—but I do not believe that the nation as a whole is conscious of the new departure that is to be made. I hope it will work smoothly, but I have my doubts. This reform is not to apply to all alike. When it comes to be put into operation there are bound to be inequalities, and I am afraid that in many cases there will be heartburning and it will be very difficult to avoid a sense of injustice. There is this exemption for beneficial employment. In the last three years the local authorities up and down the country have been trying to define it. In some cases, I am glad to say in the London area, there is a good deal of agreement. In so far as this reform will prevent blind-alley occupation it is all to the good, but I am afraid that when it is put into practice the jobs will go in many cases to the children of the best paid scales. The children of poorer parents, perhaps not so well fed and clothed, when it comes to competition for these beneficial jobs will find that they will not get them. I am one of those who argued, when the Bill was going through, that it would have been far better to have every one treated alike. I think it would have been better to raise the age a term at a time so that every parent would find that his child would be under the same obligation to attend school.
I hope it will work smoothly, but I know that the local education authorities in many cases are worried by this difficult and responsible task. I am told that it is anticipated that something like 50 per cent. of the children are likely to get exemption. Their troubles will then begin. If parents know that the children of their neighbours are going to school, they will willingly send their children, but if they find that the children of their neighbours, much better off than themselves, have jobs bringing in 15s., 18s. or £1, there will be dissatisfaction, especially as there is at present considerable demand for juvenile labour, and there will be a shortage next year owing to the operation of the Act. I am afraid there will be a real sense of injustice and discontent.

Be that as it may, if this Act is to be a success, in spite of obtaining the good will of the parents, the local education authorities and the Board of Education will have to convince the parents that even if their children are not obtaining beneficial employment, they are at least getting beneficial education.
In the case of many boys and girls who will be staying the extra year there will be a temptation to keep them in the same class, going through the same lessons and doing work similar to that which they have been doing during the last 2 ½ or three years. I would plead with the President of the Board of Education, through the Parliamentary Secretary, that that should not be the course adopted under this new experiment. It is vital that there should be something new, novel and fresh to prove to the parents and the children that the extra year is a real gain. It may be psychological, but if this Act is to have the backing from the parents and the good will of the nation something of that kind is necessary. We all know that reorganisation has been going on apace in most parts of the country. In London it is more or less complete, but in other parts of the country, particularly in the rural areas, it has not been possible to complete the arrangements. There is a suspicion in many minds that this means merely the reshuffling and shifting of children above 11 from one school to another.
I should like to draw attention to a very remarkable report from the Chief Inspector of Schools in London, Mr. Brown, one of the ablest inspectors, who comes with a fresh mind to the work. He admits that in spite of the good work that is being done in some schools, even in London, things are not satisfactory. I should like to quote two interesting paragraphs from his report, which is up to date, having been published in July of this year. He says:
 It is generally agreed that in some important respects the task of the senior schools is as yet barely begun. It is doubtful whether the senior school has sufficiently questioned the appropriateness of the curriculum and teaching methods, taken over largely en bloc from the unreorganised schools.
In other words, under the new experiment the senior schools have not come up to those standards that were recommended by that famous report of the Committee on the Education of the Adolescent, now known as the Hadow Report, quite an


ancient document, 13 years old, but still the bible of many educationists. On page 178 of that report it is stated:
 The education of children over the age of 11 in modern schools and senior classes is one species of the genus secondary education. It is not an inferior species and it ought not to be hampered by conditions of accommodation and equipment inferior to those of grammar schools. The construction and equipment of modern schools should approximate to the standard required by the Board in schools working under the regulations for secondary schools 13 years ago.
That will take time to bring about. Obviously it is not possible, even in the last few years, to bring all our schools up to that most desirable standard, but I do say that the Poard must insist, if this new experiment is to be a success, that all these schools shall be as well equipped as is possible. Every senior school should have its craft room properly fitted up. In the old school board days, that is many years ago, they attempted to reach a standard in which every school had an art room. I ask that every school, except those in rural districts where of course it is impossible, should have a proper craft room with an up-to-date equipment. In all reports it is agreed this experiment is to be sure that the that one of the secrets of the success of boys and girls shall be given an education directly related to the life they are going to enter when they leave school. That will do much to justify the proposal and to reconcile parents to the extra year. I would also suggest that in all schools there should be a proper chemical laboratory where they could have practical science work on lines of secondary schools. In many schools they have been provided with a little rearrangement and at a comparatively small capital expenditure.
The same spirit should be applied to the syllabus. I am not suggesting that we should over-emphasise the craft side. I do not wish for a moment that the literary side should be neglected. The teaching of history—not the same old history lesson over again—should, I think, be related to life and to the responsibilities of citizenship. I should like to see, for instance, a simple story told to the children of the growth of Parliamentary government, especially at a time when democracy is on trial. As for literature, they should still have the ordinary books, but I can visualise—it is not a dream—opportunities in the last

year for boys and girls to attend Shakespeare plays. The Reverend Stewart Headlam was a great pioneer in the advocacy of children going to the theatre to see Shakespeare plays, and that is actually being done at the present time partly through the help of the endowment fund. It should be general. Then I think the last year should mean something different to the other years. The teaching of music should become a greater reality. Some of our enemies are most critical of the low standard of musical taste in our country. We have had the marvellous experiment of the Malcolm Sargent concerts, which were started just after the War, and do provide an opportunity for educating children in music. They have done great good, but I realise that in most parts of the country they are not possible. However, the Board can do a great deal by encouraging the use of the wireless, in co-operation with the British Broadcasting Corporation, and even by the introduction of gramophones, as has been done in many schools. I would add the hope that the music will be of the best quality, and not the second-rate stuff that is very often provided. If we could get a new spirit into the senior classes, a new atmosphere and a new syllabus, I think we might get, and ought to get, the good will of the parents and the children who were not exempted because they happened to obtain beneficial employment.
I should like now to put in a good word for something of which we are very proud in London, the selective central schools. They are not general throughout the country, but they are one of the best achievements of the last 25 years. There is a fear among the headmasters and some of the education authorities that these excellent schools will be squeezed out by the progress of the senior classes and the raising of the school age. If that were to happen, I think it would be a disaster. They are also handicapped, I understand, in the matter of maintenance grants. I understand that maintenance grants will no longer be available to the boys and girls in central schools, because the statutory age is to be 15. That will distinctly discourage children from going to the central schools.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who opened the Debate, paid some attention


to the Spens Report and the technical high school. I rather gathered from a previous Debate that that report is to be put in the pigeon hole, and that we are not to hear very much more about it. I understand that the Government are going to concentrate on the technical institute, as opposed to these schools, and on the completion of our secondary school system, and the organisation of senior classes. Nevertheless, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that there is much leeway to be made up both in technical and commercial education. All the reports indicate that. I suggest that the central school might be a very good substitute for the technical high school. If the term "central school" is not liked, by all means give it some other title, such as "technical high school." These central schools meet a very real need, and they do most valuable work. The boys and girls from the central schools always get good employment, and what is more important, they keep their jobs. There is a real demand for them. I know from my own knowledge and experience in London that the boys and girls from these schools get good employment. There is competition for them because their training is very satisfactory. It would be nothing short of disastrous if these schools were to suffer a setback.
Undoubtedly, there is much to be done in technical education. The Spens Report may have been on the wrong lines, but it was fundamentally right in advocating an improvement in the whole system of technical education. The great advance of Germany before the War was undoubtedly due to concentration on technical education. All evidence shows that the advance in science and technology in every branch of production in Germany was due to that great work which was done to enable them to get ahead of France. France has recognised the fact, and in the last few years the French have been spending large sums in providing the machinery for an advance in technical education. As to the United States, of course they are miles ahead of all of us. Abraham Lincoln goes down to history famous for his work of freeing the slaves, but I am not sure that a work of equal if not of greater importance has been that, the foundations of which were laid by him in his advocacy

of technical education. I understand that the Board has a policy and intends to encourage the erection of new technical institutes and the extension of existing institutes. The Board will deserve well of the country if they give local education authorities every assistance and stimulus to complete our system of technical education, so that our workers may have the same opportunities as those of some countries and particularly the United States.

10.32 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) spoke of the advantages which he would like to see provided in every school with regard to technical education, such as laboratories and other desirable features. I endorse all he has said, but I want to speak in the short time at my disposal of schools in which none of these advantages exist and of the many children in our country whose education is not worthy of the name. I speak of some of the small private schools. I believe that the number of private schools is about 10,000, and that they are giving accommodation to some 400,000 children. I should be the last not to admit that many of them give what is perhaps the best type of education obtainable in the country. I am not discussing those. But none of us who have taken any interest in education can have the smallest doubt that there are a great many private schools in this country, with very varying fees, catering for varying classes of children, where the education is negligible, and where the health of the children is seriously neglected.
Committees which sat in 1861, 1868, 1894 and 1931 all stressed the desirability of the inspection of these schools. Their reports were shelved on the ground that to carry them out would be expensive and that we had so many other commitments that it was not possible to put their recommendations into effect at the time. But when one sees that the education Estimates are up by £1,250,000 over 1938, there is really no excuse for not dealing with this problem. We have a declining population and every child is of value to us, and it is a terrible thing to think that at least 100,000 of our children to-day, are receiving practically no education at all.
A case came to my notice the other day of a girl who had finished her training at the Margaret Morris school in London. Her training for the first year cost 90 guineas, for the second year, 75 guineas, and for the third year, 60 guineas. At the end of those three years, that girl was qualified to go out into the world as a Margaret Morris teacher. I, who have seen the girl and read her letters, can say without any hesitation that she was qualified to teach nothing else under the sun. The letter which she wrote to me had not one sentence in it which was written in correct English and very few words which were spelt rightly. She got a post at a school near Rugby, at £1 per week, and she understood that she had to teach Margaret Morris dancing and elementary English, but when she got to the school she found that she had to teach every single subject to a class of 12 children. The fees which parents were paying at that school were 30 guineas a term, with almost every subject as an extra, but their children were receiving nothing of value in return, and that is not an isolated instance.
The parents who send their children to these schools doubtless wish to give and believe they are giving their children a good education, but I say that it is no longer a thing which should be left to the judgment of the parents. It is supposed to be a law of this land that every child should have a reasonable education, and by what right do we leave this large number of children almost wholly uncared for? There are very much worse instances of private schools than that I have quoted. Members who have read the last report, the report for 1931, of the Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will realise that there are many little schools being held in back rooms with fees of about 1s. per week where there are not even a sufficiency of educational utensils such as books. If we cannot afford to have inspectors to inspect every type of school, I ask that at least it should be possible to circularise parents as to the great dangers that are run in some of these private schools, to ask every school in the country to register, and to give them full warning that within the next five years they will be inspected in some way or other and that any school proved to be unsatisfactory will be closed. Surely that is not asking too much.
Now I want to turn for a moment or two to the subject of central schools in the country districts, and here I am afraid I shall not have the sympathy of the Parliamentary Secretary, but I say without hesitation that good as I believe many of the central schools to be, I believe the policy with regard to central schools which is being followed in many parts of the country is nothing short of disastrous. In the county of Somerset, an agricultural county and one of the most beautiful counties in this country, only 45 per cent. of the new central schools which are being built are being placed in wholly rural surroundings. We all verbally deplore the drift from the country to the town. Can it be said that taking these children from their country districts and educating them in a town is encouraging either love for or understanding of country life? I assure the hon. Member that in very many instances it is having a very detrimental effect, not only upon the health, but upon the character of the children, and I think we have a right at this time to ask what the cost is.
In the little town of Frome we have one school which has been built at a cost of £35,000 and another school which is about to be built at an approximate cost, I am told by the Minister, of another £35,000. I notice, and I deplore, that when we hear of approximate costs in these cases we may be pretty certain that the approximate cost given is generally below the cost which in fact is eventually incurred. We are building these schools in Frome, costing £70,000, for a declining population, and I say, because I know, that there are schools around Frome which could have been enlarged and which could have been used. There is a school in the village of Mells which could hold 200 children, and 24 children are being educated there. The Mells school could have been enlarged.
Under Section 18 of the Education Act, 1921, it was laid down that before these large central schools were built all the school managers in the districts affected, and the parents, had a right to be consulted. I quite realise that in some little corner a notice of the fact that a central school is about to be built is posted up, but I do not think that can be considered as really consulting the parents, and I know that in many instances the parents bitterly deplore the taking of the


children from the country villages into the towns. In the main I believe in the building of central schools, but I do not believe in taking children from country districts to educate them in a town. Build your central schools wherever possible in the country. I think that the ratepayers, the parents and the school managers have a right to be consulted more fully than they have been before these schemes are put into effect. In view of the late hour and the fact that I promised to be brief I will no longer hold the attention of the House, but I beg the Minister to do something to ensure that at no distant date the private schools which I mentioned in the beginning of my speech shall be inspected.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I do not intend to detain the House long, but I would say, in passing, that I found myself in hearty agreement with the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) in her remarks on private schools. There can be no doubt that a large number of misguided people in this country have too much faith in private schools. As a matter of fact, it is a form of, perhaps, lower middle-class snobbery. If they really wanted effective and good education for their children they would not send them to private schools but to the State schools. But as the hon. Lady went on I found myself differing somewhat from her. I do not share her view about reorganisation in the rural areas. The rural child has the right to an equal education with the town child, and if I were going to criticise to-night what has happened under reorganisation I would say that anyone who studied the statistics would be bound to agree that in this matter of the better educational facilities that reorganised schools provide the rural child is still at a disadvantage. If I could spur the Board of Education to do anything, I would spur them on to do something more for the rural areas. It cannot be done by mere expressions of sentiment, it cannot be done by talking idealism about education.
I know that I am often out of tune with the Debates here. I hear a great deal of academic discussion upon education, but over and over again I have tried to point out that the main thing the House and the Government can do is to provide the money that is wanted in order

to get rid of the shocking bad buildings that still exist. Of the schools that have been on the list for the past 10 or a dozen years at least a third of them are still there, and the Board of Education seems to be satisfied with what has been done; but as a matter of fact I believe it will be found that black-listed schools have been made quicker than they have been removed, and more particularly in the rural areas.
I want to confine my remarks to two or three matters which I ought to mention, although there are other things I should like to talk about. I will say something on the subject of health. We have recently had a very much talked of report by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies). He has dealt not only with the health side but with the education side, and with the picture which he has painted I agree in the main. There are, as he said, very bad school buildings in Wales which do not minister to the development of a healthy Welsh race and which undermine that race. Those are school buildings which sow the seeds of ill-health in later life. The feeding and milk system is inadequate in many areas. With that I agree, but I hope the hon. and learned Member will not misunderstand me when I say that while that picture is largely true there is a sort of underlying political dishonesty about it.
The report is in some ways a slander on the Welsh people. The hon. and learned Member talked about the malnutrition of the children and the report says—I will not say that he says—that there was a concensus of opinion that poverty was by no means the chief factor in malnutrition. I utterly and completely deny that. Poverty is the main factor in that malnutrition in Wales. I do not know whether the writers of the report took any pains to consider or look into the incomes of the people in Wales. They should have considered the level of agricultural wages there. I have the figures of Mr. Rowntree, which conclusively show that the income of working-class families in Wales as well as in England is responsible for the malnutrition that exists.
As a matter of fact, the report is a slander on the schools and on the mothers of Wales in saying that malnutrition is due to their ignorance. The malnutrition of the children in Wales is due


to the lack of income. Give the mothers the income and they will see that their children are properly fed. The problem is not one of what food shall the children eat but of what food the parents can afford to get. I therefore hope that when the report is further considered the attack will not be directed to the authorities in Wales. I know that a number of them have not been all they could have been and that there is some responsibility resting upon their shoulders, but the main responsibility rests with the Government. The main responsibility in regard to bad schools in Wales and schools that are unfit for children to go to, as well as those which, according to the report, breed disease in the children, lies largely at the door of the Board of Education and of the National Government.
Let me give two very striking figures which I have had to gather. I have had to accept them from a financial examination f have seen. They are not my own working-out, and if the Parliamentary Secretary can say that they are wrong well and good. But here are two striking facts: In Wales the average rate in the£ to meet expenditure on elementary education is 4s. 2d.; in England, it is 2s. 5d. In Wales a 1d. rate per child for average attendances is 2s. 5d., while in England it is 5s. As a matter of fact, the whole of Wales is a distressed area. Not only the industrial parts but even the rural areas are distressed. The policy of the Government has been to drain those areas of the youths that are there. If, in the field of education, the Government are going to meet the situation in Wales, they are not going to take the children and the youths away but to put money into Wales.
The first fundamental thing is that the Government should shoulder a greater responsibility in financing the social service of education. The next thing that we want to see regarding Wales deals with administration. The units of administration are too small. When a 1d. rate brings in £12, £20, or £100, small sums to meet the great liabilities upon them, then obviously the very fact that you have not a rate pool, a reserve to dip into inevitably tends to cripple the social service of education in Wales. We are really most unfortunate, as far as the service of education is concerned, with the National Government. For a long time

we have had a second Minister in charge in this House. I am not attacking the hon. Gentleman personally, but we ought to have in this House the Minister of Education, whom we could directly attend to and from whom we could get a responsible answer.
I would have liked to have had from the Minister an assurance that the unit of administration in Wales will be seriously tackled. I would have liked an assurance that the whole grant system, as far as Wales is concerned, would be put under review. Money must flow from the Chancellor of the Exchequer into the local areas. Years ago we had the Bruce Committee about the organisation of secondary education in Wales and not a single thing has been done except a closer liaison as far as the Board of Education is concerned. We still have in the field of secondary education a dual system. We have the municipal secondary schools and the intermediate schools—in my view an absurd arrangement. In brief, the finance of the services in Wales and the organisation of the services in Wales demand a complete overhauling and reviewing and demand also that the Government should approach this problem determined that these services shall be better organised and better financed.
In this service of education, economy has already begun; it is there. It is all very well to say, as Government spokesmen have said, that rearmament is going on and that the social services are not being curtailed, but they are being curtailed. I have here a specific case, which illustrates many others. It is an amazing case. It is the case of Glossop Grammar School, a secondary school that for years has been condemned as completely unsatisfactory. I have extracts from reports for years back, and all of them say that the building is unsatisfactory. But when the authority asks for a new building, under Circular 1464 nothing can be done; the new school is denied. It is all very well for the Minister to say, "But we are going to spend money on the elementary system; we are not going to curtail there"; but here is the fact, and I could give others, that in the realm of secondary education the Board is already economising, and economising severely, at the expense of the effective secondary education of these children and at the


expense even of the health and general facilities that ought to obtain in the schools.
The House would be surprised if I read out the reports from His Majesty's inspectors over a long period of years urging that new schools should be provided, and pointing out over and over again that the buildings were unsatisfactory. Now, under Circular 1464, the Board, and, I suppose, the Government, have decided that new buildings cannot be erected. Economy has already begun; it is already spreading. The Government, I believe, are relying in many areas on the initiative of reactionary local authorities, and they are relying, too, I believe, on the strain which the present financial arrangements impose upon local authorities. I have been interested to find out what increases have been responsible for what has happened as far as the Budget is concerned, and I have made a comparison between the expenditure of the year 1913–14 and that of 1936–37 and of 1937–38.
I find that, while the Budgetary expenditure in 1936–37 went up, as compared with 1913–14, by £704,000,000, that increase in the budgetary expenditure has not been due to the increase in expenditure on the social services, and, in particular, on the social service of education. It has been due to expenditure on the War debt and fighting services. They account for £308,000,000 out of that £704,000,000, while education accounts for £41,000,000. The fighting services and the War debt account for 43 per cent. of that increase, while education is responsible for 5.6 per cent. Take the expenditure on the various services as percentages of the Budget. In 1913–14 education amounted to 8.84 per cent. of the Budget, in 1936–37 it amounted to 6.48 per cent. of the Budget, in 1937–38 it was 6.86 per cent. of the Budget. The fighting services took 39 per cent. of the Budget in 1913–14, and in 1937–38 50 per cent. of the Budget. The call for economy in education has no justification in the statistics of our Budgets. We are not spending as great a proportion of the national income on education to-day as we were in 1913–14.
Everybody who has studied the question will agree that this service is not now a "three r's" service, as it used

to beat a time that hon. Members can remember. It is a much wider social service, which caters for the physical well-being, the mental development and the character development, as it were, of the youths and adolescents of this nation. This nation cannot afford to economise on the social service of education. As that brilliant report just written by Dr. A. E, Morgan points out, the central problem of adolescents is the unprogressive nature of the work provided for them. There is no training for large masses of our youths in modern industry. Modern industry, by and large, is unprogressive, and it is in the schools that we have to find means for the physical development, the mental development, and the technical equipment of this nation.
If the Government intend to see that we have an A1 nation they will, instead of economising, get the service expanded. Wales, Durham and those other distressed areas are the areas of the high birth rate, and the high death rate too. Wales has provided this nation with wealth untold. You must not leave Wales at this moment to struggle with the burden which it carries on its back. The Welsh people have made greater sacrifices for their children, for education, than any other part of the British Isles, and I say to the Minister that if he is going to make a contribution, both to the Welsh children and to the English children, he has to see that the whole system of grants and the whole system of units of administration are reviewed, and that more money is provided from the central Exchequer in order to finance this vital service.

11.5 p.m.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I hope that I may have a few moments in which to reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who attacked the external examination for schools. It seems to be with him a kind of King Charles's head. This is the third time to my knowledge that the subject has occurred in these Debates. The Hadow Report, for which I have an admiration equal to his own, praised wholeheartedly the system of external examination conducted by various university bodies. I would ask him to read that report again, and I would draw his attention to the fact that it recommended a curriculum to be followed by all children in secondary schools up to the


age of 16 plus. It is precisely the same curriculum as qualifies for the matriculation examination of London University.
I do not want to dwell upon that report in this Debate, but to confine my attention to one subject only, and one which, I hope, will attract the sympathy of the Parliamentary Secretary. I refer to the part which can be played, and ought to be played in our educational system, by the cinematograph. The first report of the Cinematograph Films Council gives a direct challenge to the Board of Education. It points out that the Board of Education should really supply educational films in the schools, and also that the supply of educational films is likely to diminish progressively, as it is diminishing, because of the slight use which is made of these films. In an answer which the Parliamentary Secretary gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) a couple of years ago, he said that the Board of Education were prepared to give subsidies up to 50 per cent. of the cost for the supply of cinematograph apparatus in elementary, secondary and technical schools, but on being pressed to make some kind of concession for the supply of films, he said that that was another matter. It is that part of the equipment that I would like him to consider very carefully. I have taken the trouble to find some comparative figures of the use which is made of cinematograph instruction in different countries, and it is really something of a reproach to our country that we are far behind. I have the authentic information to the effect that at the end of this year every school in Germany will be supplied with projector apparatus.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We are better off than they are now.

Sir E. Graham-Little: Not in the schools. In Italy the same consummation will be reached also at the end of this year. In the United States the supply of projector apparatus is one in eight as regards the schools, and in this country it is one in 13. There are 27,000 schools which ought to have this apparatus, and only 1,600 have it at the present time. The projector apparatus is of two types—that suitable for silent films and that suitable for sound films. The apparatus

for sound films is much more expensive and possibly not quite as suitable for general supply to schools. The cost of projector apparatus for silent films is not more than £30 or £40, but the cost of the apparatus for sound films is about twice as much as that. The report points out that the best immediate prospect of supplying these films is to found libraries where they can be collected. I have again information that a large number of progressive local authorities are actually supplying this need at present. There is quite a long list. I will not read it all, but Manchester, Bassetlaw, Liverpool, the Middlesex County Council, the London County Council, Sheffield, Birmingham and quite a number of other large centres are supplying this equipment. I am told that the way they do it is to give the free use of the films to the schools under their jurisdiction.
I would plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the possibility of giving a grant for the supply of films as well as for the supply of projectors. The cost of the projectors is, of course, heavy, and in many schools it is impossible to get the 50 per cent. It might possibly be an act of grace of the Board of Education to make some special terms for schools where that is the case. There are many schools where the desire for the supply of this form of educational instruction is so keen that the teachers themselves, out of their meagre salaries, have got together and bought the apparatus, and when you have individual effort of that kind it surely ought to be the desire and object of the Board of Education to fill that important need. I do not think it has been at all realised how extensive the use of that kind of film might be. I am something of a film fan and I have seen a great many which have filled me with admiration. There is the admirable film prepared by my friend Julian Huxley on the educational value of foodstuffs, an extraordinarily convincing and useful film, at no time more necessary or convincing than at present. Many will have seen the film illustrating the technique adopted by Sir Herbert Barker in his work as a bone-setter. It is enormously open to further extension and the only thing that is stopping it is the lack of means. A very small provision would be necessary to fill the want. I ask the Minister to consider the question.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I should not have intervened but for some remarks of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) which I certainly cannot allow to pass unanswered. He made the accusation that I had slandered my fellow-countrymen, and, in particular, the women of Wales. It is a serious enough charge to bring against anyone to have slandered people in a report that was made after due consideration and after hearing evidence given by a very large number of witnesses. I have too high a regard for my people, and especially for the Welsh women, to make any charge against them which would be in any way derogatory, and if the hon. Member, instead of choosing just one sentence, had studied the report as a whole, he would have seen that, instead of making any reflection upon any single woman or upon women as a body, we have nothing but admiration for the way in which they carry on and look after their children under immense difficulty.

Mr. Cove: How then does the hon. and learned Member explain these two paragraphs?
 In the very early stages of our inquiry our attention was drawn to the frequency of bad feeding, due in large measure to the failure, either through incapacity or neglect, of the housewife to cook economical and satisfactory meals.
Also this paragraph:
 Although differing views were expressed, it seemed clear that the consensus of opinion of the witnesses was that poverty was by no means the chief factor in malnutrition in Wales, and that the wrong choice of foods, ignorance and carelessness were much more responsible.

Mr. Davies: Those words were carefully chosen, and if the hon. Member will read them again he will realise that what we were pointing out was that the system of education is to blame, and not the people. In the same way when we were dealing with their habits we paid tribute to them that they were able to keep their houses clean, and, still more, that they were able to keep up their spirits, in spite of the tremendous difficulties which they had to encounter. What we were pointing out, after hearing no doctors, local doctors, who had had full experience, was that the food which was being given to the children and the food that was being used in the houses was not of the best and the most economic kind which they could

afford. We realised, and anybody who has inquired into the conditions anywhere, especially in the depressed areas of Wales—all will agree with me that the whole of Wales is a depressed area—will realise that where the wages are 35s. or 36s., where there is poverty, the best use of such money as they are getting is not being made. That was the unanimous opinion of the local doctors who gave evidence. So anxious were we about the matter that we asked that a special inquiry should be conducted by the county medical officer, to check the evidence that had been given by the others, and as a result of that inquiry he confirmed the evidence that had already been given by the other doctors.

Mr. Cove: You are still slandering the women of Wales.

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Member will only bear with me while I reply to him he will realise that there is no intention whatsoever to slander any person or any body of persons. There is a deliberate intention to call attention to the system. That system was described to us by one doctor who said that under our system of education the little girl is taken away from her mother when she is about five or six, she remains away until she is 14 or 15, and the chances are that she does not come back to the household. Whether it be boy or girl, the whole trend of education since 1870 has been to fit the children somewhere into the industrial niche, so that they can be fitted into the machine. The girls are not being trained to have any regard for the household, or the better conduct of the house, or their future duties as wives or as mothers. The result is that their knowledge of cooking is of the slightest degree. Doctor after doctor told us so. We were not drawing on our own imagination.

Mr. Cove: Mr. Cove indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member shakes his head. I and my colleagues shook our heads when we listened to the evidence. We could not ignore the evidence of each one of the witnesses. What we were anxious about was that the Board of Education should reconsider the whole system of education which is given, especially to girls. We suggested that


not only should the girls be taught housekeeping—which is a better name, in my opinion, than "domestic science"—but that it would be a good thing if the boys also knew something about it. But we were given one piece of news by the headmaster of an elementary school which is rather indicative of the lack of experience on the part of these girls as to household work. He procured catalogues from a furniture firm and distributed them among the girls in the sixth and seventh standards, asking them to suppose that a kind person had given £100 to them to furnish a house.

Mr. Cove: A stretch of imagination.

Mr. Davies: I agree, but it was done to see how the little girls would respond to the test. Only one of them went through all the little necessities that would be required, and one little girl exhausted the whole £100 in the purchase of a grand piano.

Mr. Cove: Why not?

Mr. Davies: I should have thought from the rest of his speech that the hon. Member was more concerned about the health and well-being of the race, and in a standard of education which would improve their conception of life. With the rest of his speech I am in absolute agreement. The condition in the rural areas is as we described it. Little children, to a large extent, have to go for a whole day without a solid meal, and go into a school badly heated and containing no facilities for drying clothes. Let me draw the attention of hon. Members to the figures of the schools which were blacklisted as long ago as 1925, and which are still allowed to exist, schools which were a danger in 1925 to the health of the children. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board said there were three descriptions of schools, (a) those which were hopeless, (b) those which needed small repairs, and (c) those which needed larger repairs. Those which were described as hopeless in 1925 should have been dealt with in 1925, but to one's surprise some of them are in existence to-day, and children have been going to them from 1925 to 1939
What makes it still more significant is that if the children are not sent to these schools the parents are liable to criminal prosecution. What is worse is that the

parents themselves do not know about the condition of these schools. The Board of Education and the local education authority know, but the parents act in ignorance and send their children to these schools which are known to the Board and to the local education authority to be a danger to the health of the children, otherwise, they would not have been put on the black list. I remember the evidence that was given with regard to them. My colleague and I asked specifically what was the meaning of a school being on list A, and the answer was that when it was put on that list, it was a possible or probable danger to the health of the children. That is a state of things which ought not to be allowed to exist. Every one of those schools ought to be closed. So deep was the impression made on my colleague and I that we said it was better that the children should not be sent to such schools, better that their education should be postponed until there were proper premises provided.
In his reply, which was made in the House when the question of this report was first raised—a Debate in which I did not take part, because I did not think it was right that I should—to my surprise, the hon. Gentleman rather dismissed that in an airy kind of way. He said that he would not go quite as far as postponing the children's education. I would point out to him that the postponement of their education might mean only a few months, but that would be better than endangering the health of the children for the rest of their existence, which is what is happening now. Surely, there are means provided in every village. There is not a village in Wales which has not three or four chapels in it. In my village, where the school fell in last winter, the children are being sent to the chapels. There they are dry at any rate, and they can be kept there until a new school is put up. Why cannot that be done in other places? If it were done, one would imagine that straight away an effort would be made to provide them with proper schools.
Finally, I would like to make an appeal to the Board of Education to consider further grants to these poorer areas. There is a number of counties in Wales where a 1d. rate does not produce more than about £600. If I remember the figures rightly, in Anglesey, it is £630; in my own county of Montgomeryshire,


£636; in Merioneth, about £630; in Cardiff, a little over £700; and in Radnor, thanks to the rates being paid by the Birmingham waterworks, about £800. How can those people provide, out of such a rate, the necessary amenities which are required? There is a call for new houses. In the report, we did our best to describe the conditions of rural housing. They are beyond description. The schools are bad. The feeding of the children is inadequate. Every one of them ought to have a mid-day meal given to them, specially the little toddlers. Some of them have to walk four miles to school. There are children in my village who have to do that; they start at seven o'clock in the morning, on little enough breakfast, and the next meal they get is at six o'clock at night.
How can these areas manage on such rates as I have mentioned? The people are leaving the land. In my own county, the population to-day is less than the population of 1800. I am losing them at the rate of 500 a year, but what is much more important, I am losing the children at the rate of 250 a year. I will give the figures for the last few years. Last year, there were 275 fewer children going to the elementary schools in Montgomeryshire than in the previous year, and in the year prior to that, 260 fewer children; and the figure has been going down over the last 12 years at the rate of 250 a year. Someone very rightly said that my county will be a county of old age pensioners in a short time unless these amenities are restored to the countryside. They cannot restore them themselves. England has drawn heavily upon Wales. It has drawn from South Wales a large part of its wealth. I know of no part in the wide world that has contributed so much to the wealth of this country as South Wales. At the present moment, it is making a heavier toll upon my country. It is drawing upon the manhood of my country. The population of England since 1921 has gone up by 3,500,000 while the population of Wales has gone down in a similar period by 170,000. We are asking that these matters should be borne in mind by the Board of Education and other Government Departments, and that there should be restored to our country a part of the wealth which it has contributed so

lavishly in past years to this whole community and to the world.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: In the first place, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) on his strong, forcible and impassioned speech. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) has drawn a very black picture of the schools and the conditions in Wales. Much of what he has said applies to the distressed areas in the county of Durham. In that county we would would like to go on progressing in education, as we have done in the past 20 years, but, unfortunately, owing to the conditions there, the cry of "Halt" has gone forth and the local education authorities have to consider ways and means very carefully because of the distress which prevails in that county. The hon. and learned Member talked about teaching girls to cook and referred to the statements of certain doctors that the mothers of Wales could not cook. I wonder who cooks the doctors' meals? Very probably girls from the elementary schools. The hon. and learned Member also spoke of boys being taught house-keeping. If Wales is like Durham, house-keeping will soon be the only employment available and we had better start straight away to train the boys for it. As far as I can see, there is no future for the distressed areas unless the Government come to their aid with more finance.
I desire, however, to speak mainly of a subject which has not yet been touched upon in this Debate. That is the large number of children who are still being taught, in classes of over 40 pupils, in elementary schools. There is a certain complacency in the last report of the board in which they point out that it is very satisfactory that there is a decrease. I find however, that there are still 42,481 classes with over 40 pupils and under 50 and that that affects 1,900,000 pupils. There are 2,077 classes with over 50 pupils affecting 114,000 pupils; and there are actually 23 classes with over 60 pupils, affecting, approximately, 1,400 pupils. Taking the total of classes of over 40, over 2,000,000 pupils are affected and yet on page 15 of the latest report there is a reference to the "normal limit of 30" in classes in secondary schools.
There is a prevalent notion that the younger the pupils, the more of them can be taught by one teacher. I speak with some experience—perhaps an experience unique among Members here—and I assert that such an idea is all wrong. I had six years of teaching infants, whose ages ranged from three to seven years. I had many years of teaching in junior schools children from 8 to 11 plus and I have taught, in senior schools, children from 11 plus to 16. I unhesitatingly say that it is unfair to teacher and pupil alike, to have 40 children, to whatever age group they belong, in one class. Let any hon. Member of this House try to keep in order four-children, never mind 40, of from four to seven years of age, let him attempt to keep them quiet for one hour, not five and a half hours a day, and let him, over and above that, try to teach them to read. He will know then what an impossible task it is to attempt to teach children in classes of over 40. It is true that in modern teaching we have gone the reverse way to that taken by industry. Industrial development has gone largely from individual to mass production, whereas in the best form of modem education we are trying to get away from mass production and to get more to the individual, to the child itself. We believe that in a sound, sane system of education the individual child ought to be considered. As John Stuart Mill put it:
 Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called.
I say that mass teaching, this large-class teaching, is bound to retard individuality. I know that in the past the curriculum assisted in trying to force all the pupils into the same mental mould, with disastrous results. The shadow of the examination—referred to by the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), speaking from the Front Bench on this side—in the old days in the elementary schools was one of those things which crushed the joy out of education. We have got rid of that now, but we must still beware of turning out human robots, and that is all that you can turn out if you have big classes of 40 or over. We have the experience of the totalitarian States, with their mass production education. Large classes must of necessity deny that treatment which brings out personality. The children of the well-to-do are not taught in hordes. Right from their earliest years they have a governess or a

tutor, then they go on to the preparatory school, with very small classes, and then to the public school, with very small classes again. We on this side of the House say that the pupils in grant-aided schools ought to have the equality of opportunity in educational matters that those other children have, because these bairns have little enough equality of opportunity in other matters.
Again, by reducing the size of classes unemployed teachers would obtain a chance in their profession; otherwise, to ask boys to go into the teaching profession is to ask them to enter a blind-alley occupation. There is no telling how many of these unemployed, trained, certificated teachers there are. I have tried to find out by questions, time and time again, and I cannot get very near any real result, but I know that in Durham County alone we have over 80 of them—that is, before the students leave the training college this year. When we consider the cost to the parents, the sacrifice to the parents, and that many of these boys have fathers who are themselves unemployed, we find that "the sins of the fathers" are indeed being visited upon the children, because we actually get cases of unemployed sons of unemployed fathers. The monetary cost to the parents is large, and the cost to the State as well is large. The cost to the Government of a two years' training course is £100 for each student, and the cost to the teachers concerned cannot be measured in money.
I want briefly to refer to four examples of young men who are unemployed, trained, certificated teachers. In my own little valley, the Wear Valley in County Durham, I know of four boys, I know their parents, I know how they were educated, I know the sacrifices that their parents have made. The first one has had a very few weeks' supply teaching in four years. He is now engaged as an agricultural worker. The second one has done no teaching; has been out of college four years; has worked as a limestone quarryman. The third one has done three months' teaching in four years and odd jobs besides. He sent me a letter saying:
 You are aware of the prospects of jobs both in the teaching profession and in other directions in this part of the county. Durham has no use for me in the teaching profession. Three months' teaching in four years proves that conclusively.


He goes on—his letter is dated 15th June—
 In a short time from now a further batch of men will come into the already overcrowded market. I was certainly right to make at least an attempt at the career for which I was trained before resigning myself to any odd job that happens along, with the dole in between and the means test round the corner, as is the case at present.
He is a certificated teacher trained at the expense of his parents and of the State. I sent a letter about him to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I want to thank him here, openly, for the kindly help he gave when he sent back a letter which I forwarded to that young man, with a suggestion of which he has taken advantage. The fourth one has a father who has been unemployed for five years. He has been out of college two years and has done no teaching. He wrote a letter to the "Northern Echo" a fortnight ago, and I will quote from it:
 I came out of college in 1937 full of hope. I expected employment in the profession which had just received me into its membership. I intended to repay my parents for their sacrifice in keeping me until I was 21, but I could not get employment. I sent dozens of application forms to all parts of the country. My father was unemployed and I could not stay at home to be a burden upon my parents, and I left home to find work where I could. If I could not be paid for using my brains then I would use my hands. I have worked as a snow-sweeper, grouse beater, navvy, amusement attendant, night watchman, and storekeeper, between periods of work as a temporary teacher. I have worked out of doors for seven days a week in the midst of winter, wearing rubber boots and mole-skin clothes.
He goes on:
 Give us a chance to work in the profession for which we have qualified. All hope seems to be gone. As Milton says, ' Thus repulsed our final hope is flat despair.' 
That is the position of hundreds of young men who have been trained as teachers. The remedies are, briefly, smaller classes, which would absorb them all, evening school work, and—which was the advice which the Parliamentary Secretary sent to the young man I referred to—to take an intensive course as a physical instructor and then try to get a job as a physical instructor. My last words are: This country is neglecting its duty, and the National Government is neglecting its duty, if it does not pay some attention to these hundreds of young people, who have given five or six of the best years of their life to training for this noble profession,

whose parents have sacrificed more than I can tell, and who are now thrown on the scrap heap.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Morrison: Had there been time I should have liked to follow up the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate when dealing with the Spens Report. From something he said I gather that he would agree with me in putting a higher value on what the report calls multi-lateral schools than the members of that committee were disposed to do. It is not only in the rural areas that the multi-lateral school can be of very great benefit. It seems to me that it is along that road that lies, it may be, the salvation of the countryside. If such schools were established in rural areas in sufficient numbers, children would not be taken away from their homes at a tender age, and the very high cost of transport would be saved. And, speaking as one who for a number of years was head of such a school in a city, I say that, within limits, the multi-lateral school can be very useful in urban areas as well. At this late hour I must not pursue the subject further.
I understand that on this Vote I shall not be out of order if I mention two points which have particular reference to Scotland. It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary is not in a position to reply to these, but I am confident that the Under-Secretary for Scotland will take careful note of what I say. The first point concerns the arrangement proposed in Glasgow for amalgamating temporarily two schools under one headmaster. There are, I think, three cases of that kind in Glasgow. Scottish educationists are gravely disquieted at the thought that something so contrary to educational principles and practice should, even temporarily, be permitted. I know what it is to be head of a secondary school of 1,000 boys and I should at any time have shrunk from undertaking, even temporarily, the charge of twice that number, as is now proposed. It would be interesting to hear some better reason for this arrangement than has hitherto been advanced.
The other matter relates to the training of teachers and the question of increasing the representation of the teaching profession on the Central Executive Committee of the National Committee for the


Training of Teachers. Let me explain briefly that the committee is the body which does the real work of the National Committee. The 16 teachers who are members of the four Provincial Committees elect two of their number to the Central Executive Committee. There are 26 members in this body. The teachers claim that having the right to elect only two members they are not adequately represented.
It is often difficult for both representatives to be present at one time, especially when the meetings of the Central Executive frequently clash with those of the teachers' professional association or its principal committee. I am aware that the answer has been given that to grant the teachers' demand would upset the balance of the committee and would occasion demands from other quarters for increased representation. My reply is that when the central executive was originally set up the teachers had two representatives on a smaller body, which was, I think, about 20 in number, and even that was inadequate in view of the special knowledge which teachers have, and the enlightened interest they take in questions affecting the training of their successors and the recruitment of the profession. One may offer the suggestion that four teacher representatives, one from each of the provincial areas, would not be too many. Teachers feel that they would thus be able to make a much more valuable contribution to the work of the central committee, and that is what they are anxious to do. The increase is asked for not in the hope of affecting voting power, but only to make more effective the expression of the teachers point of view.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: The Debate has revealed that time ought to be found at a better hour than this for Debates on the education service. I have listened to the interesting speeches that have been made, and every speaker has restricted himself to a word or two on topics each of which would have led to an interesting discussion. I can think of seven or eight very interesting topics which are covered by the Education Vote which have not been mentioned. When I recollect that during the 18 months I have been privileged to be a Member here we have spent something like £170,000,000 and

that we have given just one and a-quarter hours to the discussion of these Estimates, it seems to me that, although Parliament is described as a talking shop, we do not talk in a sort of average way about the things on which we spend our money. This, in my judgment, is one of the important topics.
I want to deal with only one question and it is a very important one. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take particular note of the difficulties which have arisen as a consequence of it. For the last seven or eight years the local authorities in this country have been pressing for either a departmental or some other committee or a Royal Commission to inquire into the grant system. The local authorities have got a case for the overhauling of that system. It has never been answered either in this House or anywhere else. I wonder whether there is a Member of this House who understands the working of the grant system. I must confess that after many years' study I feel very much like I did in my young days when a question was put to us in the school yard. We played a game which ran something like this: you think of a number, double it, multiply it by five, take away 10, take away the number you first thought of, and you get the answer. The educational grant system of this country is about the same as that. The formula upon which this grant is based is not difficult to read, but it is not easy to understand. It is 36s. for each unit and attendance in elementary school maintained by the majority, with the addition of three-fifths of the net expenditure on the salaries of teachers in the schools. I wonder sometimes whether it is written in this language to prevent it from being understood except by a few. Then there is two-fifths of the expenditure in respect of vehicles or travelling expenses for children attending those schools, half the net expenditure specified in Article 3 as ranking for aid, and one-fith, or 20 per cent., of the remaining net expenditure, less the product of a 7d. rate in the authority's area.
That is the basis on which the local authority's expenditure is based. I have met directors of education committees who have found difficulty in explaining to the members of the committees why they


were spending certain sums of money and what they were getting for it. But it is not so much the formula that I want to criticise as the way in which it has worked to the disadvantage of local authorities over a number of years. When this formula was first invented—I think it was introduced by Fisher—it was intended to give a result which was something like this: that the State provided 60 per cent. of the expenditure and the local authorities the other 40 per cent. That was how it worked and how it was intended to work out. It was for that purpose that it was brought into being. Every year since its introduction some years ago it has worked to the disadvantage of the local authority, until to-day the figures are reversed, and the local authority is paying a larger proportion of the gross expenditure than the State is paying. The 36s. per unit of average attendance in public elementary schools goes down, of necessity, with a diminishing school population, while the overhead expenditure remains the same; and at the same time the difference in the product of a id. rate which is to be observed throughout the country is again to the disadvantage of the local authority. It has been increasing at the same time as the school population has been diminishing, and. to an extent corresponding with that increase, the State is relieved of a burden which previously it bore.
In my judgment the case for the local authorities has been proved over and over again. The Board themselves, only 12 months ago, recognising the justice of it, appointed a committee from the Department to confer with representatives of the local education authorities on the matter; but, naturally enough, that committee broke down, because no departmental committee would ever agree to any recommendation which meant an increase in the amount to be provided by the Department, and yet that was the only recommendation that would have met the requirements of the local authorities. When that committee broke down, the representatives of the local authorities stated that, in view of their experience, the necessity for a committee of inquiry or Royal Commission was overwhelming.
How the Board of Education can justify this differentiation in the rates of grant I cannot make out. I cannot make

out why only 40 per cent. should be paid for travelling expenses. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate), owing to the reorganisation of the schools children are being taken from the villages to the towns in order that the educational facilities provided in the towns may be given to the children in the country districts. Is this travelling of any less importance than the provision of the school buildings, for which there is a grant of 50 per cent.?
Again, how and why is it that we are progressing in educational development by what I would call a series of stunts? There was a 50 per cent. building grant until 1931. Then came a period of economy, and until 1935 we were back at 20 per cent. In 1935, the necessity for making up the leeway due to the years of economy was revealed, and the grant went back to 50 per cent.; but a warning has been sent out that, unless the schools are in being by 1940—the date is extended to 1943 only if plans have been put in and have been approved by the Board—there is a danger that the figure will go back again from 50 per cent. to 20 per cent. If we are to have any progress in education we must drop this "stunting," and decide what the Exchequer is to pay and what the local authorities are expected to pay. The case made out, in regard to Wales, for what I would call a deficiency grant, is overwhelming. Deficiency grants have been, to all intents and purposes, abolished. Although it is true that there is some extra payment for Special Areas, that is not enough. If it would cost 1s. to provide a starving man with the means to keep him alive, it is not much good giving him 9d. Every report reveals the need for more assistance in that direction. Are we not to be assured that some inquiry will be made into the grants system? Education in this country is depending almost entirely on the loyal co-operation of the local authorities.
It seems to me that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has got out of touch with local administration, to judge by his description of what has been taking place in London. If what he said truly represents the position in London, London is a backward area educationally. I can take the hon. Member into scores of places in this country where that for which he was pleading


in the selected central schools exists in the ordinary central schools. I think that the other matter to which he referred, with regard to exemptions, was worthy of at least a couple of hours Debate in this Chamber. If we begin the administration of the 1936 Act with the idea that when the appointed day arrives 50 per cent. of the children are to be exempted, we shall destroy the possibility of these children being retained. In Lancashire we do not visualise 50 per cent.; we visualise 20 per cent. at the outside. I hope we shall insist on that, and that in that insistence we shall have the approval of the board. I know that the board ran away from the duty of defining "beneficial employment," but I hope they will stand by the local authorities, who are making the best of a poor Act, when the local authorities insist on "beneficial employment" being beneficial to the child from an education point of view. I visualise those children who are exempted going to employers who have seen the necessity of continuing the education of those children when they go into industry. Education should continue when the child begins to work. Facilities ought to be available, and in beneficial employment some of those facilities are being provided by the best employers. I hope that as a result of this Debate even at this late hour the local education authorities will be able to get some consolation from the Minister that the Department will be prepared to help by its influence, at any rate, if it is not prepared to make a determination as a board. I trust that he will give a promise to those local authorities that are attempting to do this work that, where the grant is working to their disadvantage year after year, the position will be remedied at no distant date.

12.6 a.m.

Mr. Bracken: For many weary weeks I sat on the Committee on the Cotton Industry Bill with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), and he struck me as being the most intelligent and constructive Member of that Committee. When I heard him make a speech on education in this House tonight I marvelled at his encyclopedic knowledge. I marvelled that one small head could carry all he knew. I wish I had his knowledge of education, because in intervening in this Debate, I am treading

on very delicate or dangerous ground. In listening to this Debate I have been struck by two things. One is the change in values of opposition about which we heard so much in the previous Debate. There is no doubt that the educationists in this House agree that it is the obvious duty of Opposition and Government supporters to criticise the administration of our educational affairs. The second point is the change in the hotchpotch called politics. I remember the time when education in this country was most criticised by what were described as hard-faced business men. Those gentlemen were supposed to maintain that education was the greatest of all waste. But I am bound to say that, after listening to educationalists here to-night, they seem to give points to the business men in power of criticism.
I do not think that those Members who have been suggesting criticisms or hesitating doubts about the administration of the Board of Education were doing it for any reason other than a constructive one. They are very anxious about the training of our young people. Speaking as a layman in these matters and despite the very late hour of the night, I believe that this is one of the most important Debates in which we have participated. We have spent a lot of time talking about foreign policy and armaments. But after all, education is one of the most important of all subjects and deserves an equal amount of attention. I should like to give my amateur impression of the work done by the Board of Education. In the past it has been said that the system of education in England was not only wasteful but wildly extravagant. But the results are proving not unsuccessful.
It is very hard to meet wild and sweeping general criticisms. But those criticisms were well met last month when the militiamen were called up for service. It was then discovered and for the first time by some of the great critics of education in this country that the new generation of secondary schoolboys are far more intelligent and resourceful than their predecessors. This rebuttal of the critics of education in the past is, no doubt, known to every Member of this House. But I wish once again to state publicly that, in my judgment, the


money spent on education in this country at the present moment can be the very best of all investments. We have had that claim proved through the Militia tests, and indeed through the Territorial tests.
A very distinguished Member of this House—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), who, as the House knows, and it is greatly to his honour, has reported once again for duty as a Territorial officer—was telling me the other night that what interested him most was the quality of the ordinary privates in his battalion or regiment. These privates could read maps far better than could officers of pre-war times, and their general standard of intelligence was far beyond anything anyone could expect if one accepted the criticisms of education in this country in the last few years. But the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington knows, as does every Member of this House, that the steady and indeed excellent progress of secondary education is lifting this country to greater strength as the years go by.
Manufacturers in highly complicated industries, and hard-bitten old foremen of the Victorian age, also tell me that they are immensely impressed by the quality of the younger generation. They say their resourcefulness and ingenuity are beyond all praise and they say, rightly, that if this is the type of recruit that is coming into industry to-day no one can challenge the future pre-eminence of England in certain branches of industry. I am sure that is right, and I attribute it to the excellent system of primary and secondary education.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) dealt very severely with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite for what he called his slander on the women of Wales, which was that they could not cook. If that is a slander on the women of Wales, I am going to utter the strongest possible slander on the women of England and Scotland. It is true that we have neglected to teach women how to cook. It seems to me, that in this respect, we are the most wasteful people in the world, because on a Saturday night a woman buys a joint, costing a lot of money, and brings it home and

in her amateur way cooks it for her husband. On Monday she bolts off to the chemist for remedies or specifics to make her husband fit for another week's hard work—that is to free his system from her cookery. This is no criticism of cooking in working-class homes. Some of the worst of all cooking is to be found in the stately homes of England. There is no class prejudice in this criticism. The English have never made a proper study of cooking. The French are experts in the art and have always managed to cook better than we have.
I have been lured into that digression largely because of the violence of the two hon. Welsh Members who forgot their allegiance to the leek and flew at each other's throats. To return to the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberavon, he said, with great bitterness, that there has been the most wanton or squalid economy on the building of schools. If you are going to economise on anything I would prefer to see economy on building than on anything else. I should not like to economise in teachers' salaries or milk, or other amenities, but when it comes to buildings the hon. Member ought to go to Eton and see the buildings there. If a Welsh school inspector saw them he would condemn them on sight. It is a very great mistake for experts on education to condemn the Ministry of Education root and branch merely because they have not pulled down inferior school buildings. Let them do that when there is an excess of money and the Treasury permit it, and if that latter condition is accepted it will be a long time before any buildings are altered.
But I rose to say a few words about apprenticeship. I am not a great expert but I have watched with great care occurrences in America and Germany in relation to the training of apprentices. I have no doubt that great injury was done when the apprentice system was allowed to lapse in this country. I willingly agree that it was abused in certain cases. If you can link the apprentice system with the secondary education you. have the best of both worlds. If England is to make the progress we desire, greater attention will have to be paid to an alliance between secondary education and a modernised system of apprenticeship. In relation to that matter, any money spent in grants to employers to compensate


for the shortening of hours of work of boys and girls attending courses of apprenticeship in technical schools is money extremely well spent. One of the most devastating things that has occurred to this country for many years was discovered a few years ago. Hon. Members will remember that we suddenly found that in the higher range of the engineering and other industries there was not available the necessary labour to manufacture machine tools and other complicated products, simply because we had allowed the apprenticeship system to wane and had not replaced it in any way.
My hon. Friend is doing excellent work at the Board of Education and I hope he will apply himself to the task of marrying secondary education with industrial apprenticeship because he will thus confer great benefits upon this country. We are compulsorily wasting vast sums of money in armaments and we seem to be spending a great part of our capital. Nobody can see a way out of our present troubles, and some pessimists say we shall never be able to repay the vast sums that we are spending on rearmament.
No one deplores that expenditure more than I do. But let us remember that in the last 15 or 20 years the scientists combined with the industrialists of the world have replaced much more than the total value of the wealth lost in the War. People should remember that the productivity of science, which is a by-product of education, is the greatest wealth producer in the world. It is quite possible for this country to recover its great reputation for skill in industrial production and to produce the best type of goods and thus to build up the best type of industrial prosperity. But if this is to be done it is vital that the Board of Education should be the pioneer of a real industrial educational revival of England. I think that is the duty and within the power of my hon. Friend, even in the midst of our manifold troubles, to set up an immediate and clear-cut investigation into the whole question of adapting, or marrying, or welding technical education to the secondary education, which has produced such excellent results in England, results of which we are rightly proud.

12.19 a.m.

Mr. Sorensen: This Debate is an ironical contrast with that which took place earlier

this evening, when, in an atmosphere of tension, anxiety and apprehension, we surveyed the position in which this generation finds itself. Now we have turned to consider the generation that will take our place. This Debate is like the still small voice that comes after the storm. Possibly a glimmer of light shines through the shadows. The hon. Member who has just spoken reminded us that a number of his own Friends had been astonished at the capacity shown by ordinary people who came from the working class. That statement was interesting and illuminating. It suggested to me that years ago the hon. Member and his Friends hardly believed that the working class were capable of much more than to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. Perhaps they are beginning to appreciate the fact that the capacity of the working class is just as great as that of any other class.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member is misleading the House about what I said, which was that we were not surprised, and that we knew that this expenditure on education would yield these results. The hard-faced industrialists have their opposite numbers in the hon. Member's own party. I have met some of his trade union barons who look very closely at money spent on education and say: "Look at us. We are the product of very little money spent on education. Are we not as good as some of the products of education who now ornament the Front Bench?"

Mr. Sorensen: I am not a trade union baron, nor is any of my colleagues immediately in front of me. I was not attacking the hon. Gentleman. I was very glad indeed to hear him say those things but I was not surprised to hear him casting a reflection on some of his own Friends. The hard-faced business men do not sit on these benches. I am glad of the recognition of the loss that the country has suffered in the days gone by in the waste of working class capacity, which is now admitted.
In these days we talk of economy. An hon. Friend who spoke just now suggested that if we had not economised in education we should do so in regard to the school buildings. It may be, in the present circumstances of the financial strain, that all kinds of economies are


before us, but I would remind my hon. Friend that there was a time before this tremendous expenditure on arms when we could have had a. splendid and generous plan for education, if we had pleased, in this country. It did not happen. Only comparatively recently has there gradually come to those who are supposed to be our pastors and masters an appreciation of the fact that the average working-class child has just as much intellectual capacity as a child from another class. The assumption was, regrettable as it may have seemed, that the great mass of the children were meant for only one type of life. That was why we organised their educational system as we did. Elementary education in the early days was, in fact, a specialised kind of education for the working-class child. Secondary education came from a different spring altogether. It is only in recent years that there has been a convergence of these two types of education.
I do not want to spend much time dilating further on this topic at this late hour. I will only say that the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) struck a welcome note, and that I hope very earnestly that we shall find the same note struck frequently in the days to come. When we are dwelling so constantly in an atmosphere of apprehension and spend so much time considering the tremendous burden of armaments we should recognise that one of the ways by which we can compensate for our frustrated hopes and for the gloom and apprehension spreading around us is by concentrating more and more on the generation which will take our places. If by chance our generation is doomed, instead of talking of economy we should say that whatever happens we shall see to it that Britain in the future will be far more worthy than we are ourselves. That is why I hope there will be no more talk of economy.
If we are to have a finer generation passing through our schools, we have to consider very carefully this vicious break in the educational system just when the child of working-class parentage is beginning to become sensitive to the things that really matter. A step has been taken in that direction by the prospective extension of the school-leaving age, but it is altogether inadequate. I have had

many friends who, just when their souls and minds were beginning to open up to a fuller appreciation of life, have been snatched away from the appropriate atmosphere and plunged into industry, where speedily things that have begun to grow are crushed. I earnestly plead that the Minister and the Government should realise the outrage that is frequently committed in the soul of the average boy or girl when he or she is taken away from school and plunged into the atmosphere of factory, mine, workshop or even field. Something must be done, and done speedily, to enable educational development to continue far longer than is general at the present time.
That is why I am particularly interested in adult education. Nothing has been said about that in the Debate, but I am sure the House is aware of many excellent agencies and splendid attempts that have been made to cope with adult education. It is very difficult work. I have taken a small part in it in the past, and I know the colossal difficulties that exist in regard to it. It is sometimes almost pathetic, as well as inspiring, for instance, to find some 12, 15 or 20 young men and women, as well as older ones, who assemble in the evening to go through a 12 or 24 weeks course in some particular subject. In most cases their early mental training has been broken 'short at the age of 14 or 15. They try to resume that mental discipline at 21, 24 or 25. That in itself is a tremendous gap. Those hon. Members who have had an opportunity of extended education up to the age of 18, 20 or 21, do not appreciate perhaps what a tremendous psychological gap it is to break off mental training at 14 or 15 and to try to resume it years later. Moreover, at the end of the day, all their energy has been used up, and the body and mind are sometimes too tired to give even two hours per week to consistent study of some subject. On the one hand, it is great heroism on the part of those who take part in such courses, and on the other hand, it is filled with a certain pathos, because of the inevitable frustration and failure in many cases. That is why I ask that when we do have an opportunity of giving these adult educational facilities to an older generation, such as the young men of 20 and 21, we should do so.
I hope that the militiamen will have adequate opportunities of this nature ex-


tended to them, with all the backing of the Board of Education. I know there are some who smile at this and say that the militiamen, apart from military duties, want time only for sport and social recreation. That may be so in many cases, but even those should have every inducement to try to think of mental as well as physical development. There is, however, certainly a minority which, with very little encouragement, would respond to any opportunities during their six months' training to enable them to understand a little more of the real values and treasures of life. Here, again, I would plead that nothing should be done in the days ahead to cripple adult education, meagre as it may be and touching as it may do, only a small section. Nevertheless, it stands for a principle that education of the working classes does not, and should not, cease at 14 or 15, or indeed at any age, pending that time when we can have a much more generous education not only for working-class children but for working-class youths, and, therefore, I do press the Under-Secretary not to restrict adult education for working-class people but to do all in his power to see that it is extended.
There is just one more matter to which I would like to refer, and it is one to which no reference has been made in the Debate to-day. I am quite aware that it is a dangerous subject to mention. I refer to the subject of religion in schools. I know that it is a dangerous question, because we know full well that there are parts of the country where denominational controversies have not been extinguished. But, after all, religious education either has a value or it has not. Unfortunately, I must confess that in some cases it is a sheer waste of time. I say that, not because I want to, but because it is a fact. We have some teachers who have no interest in religion but who have to pretend that they have, and we cannot in those circumstances presume that they can transfer religious instruction of any value to those whom they teach. I want the utmost freedom granted to the denominations to teach their doctrines, but I do want this particular period of the day which is supposed to be devoted to religious instruction to have a new interpretation. Do not exclude it, but put something more into it. Interpret it so that it can convey

to the children in the schools real religious and ethical standards and values, so that it can help to convey to the coming generation true principles and purposes for life.
I say this because we should all realise that in the totalitarian States the schools are being used to permeate the children with a pseudo and indeed a bastard religious outlook. The worship of the State, in whatever country it may exist, is filled with menace. I do not want to see the worship of the State extended to this country. That is why I want to see the remnants of the religious teaching which remain in this country do something to counter-balance the blind worship of the State. I do ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the possibility in the days to come of introducing into the school curriculum an opportunity for something more even than civics to be taught. It is as necessary to teach in our schools the high values of personal and social behaviour as to teach geographical and mathematical matters. Why cannot we deal with the great psychological issues which are of such great importance to the young people in our schools? As it is, in-other lands we find hate being deliberately taught as a virtue and being instilled into the veins and the souls of the children. Why cannot we deal positively with the basic human values, and not necessarily in some narrow doctrinal or theological mould?
Should we not appreciate that an education, if it gives us only educational efficiency, has largely lost its real purpose? I am not a sentimentalist; I am a realist and as such I realise that education must fit children for a living, but surely, above all, it must fit children for life. Therefore, I plead that our educational system in the future should not lose sight of that, and should endeavour to teach the new generation not simply an accumulation of knowledge but to generate an outlook on life which will enable them, when they take our places, not only to create a better Britain but to play their part in building a new and better world altogether.

12.35 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I should like to think that it was only the international emergency which


prevents us from having a proper Debate on education, but unfortunately that is not so. We never do have a proper Debate on education. I am feeling a little hungry at the moment, and I do not propose to introduce the Education Estimates at 12.35 a.m. after the exciting day we have had in the House. It has, however, been a very healthy Debate, particularly so as we have had some new entrants.
I think that the idea of passing over in a couple of hours Estimates totalling £52,000,000 is almost a denial of the functioning of democratic machinery. Moreover, there are a great many questions about which I rather wanted to talk. In fact I had prepared a speech. I am not quite sure what to do about it. If I went through it I should touch on practically every question which has been raised, including the two questions mentioned by the hon. Member for Leyton West (Mr. Sorensen).

Mr. Alan Herbert: As I understand it, the Consolidated Fund Bill is to be discussed again to-morrow. Would it be possible for this Debate to be continued by the Under-Secretary interrupting his speech now and continuing it to-morrow? I believe that a great many Members would like that.

Mr. Speaker: The subject to-morrow is entirely the choice of the House, or some part of the House.

Mr. Herbert: If we adjourned now the Parliamentary Secretary could be the first speaker to-morrow.

Mr. Speaker: That is not for me to say.

Mr. Lindsay: I think that is extremely unlikely from the point of view of the Opposition, because I understand that we are to have another Debate on unemployment. Reverting to education it was about a hundred years ago this year, in April, that a grant of £20,000 was made from State funds to public education, and the Board itself has only been in existence for 40 years. Now, to-night, I am asked to tackle, in these few minutes, the vast problems of administration which have been raised, and rightly raised, by hon. Members—problems dealing with the Spens Report, raised by the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) and many other questions. Another question which has not yet been mentioned

is the Fitness Council, but that I must forgo. Incidentally it is a little ironical that although the first time we did get out the Board's report in time for a Debate at the beginning of July, the Debate has to take place in August.
To deal first with the Spens Report, in February I think I made it plain in reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Keighley that the long-term recommendations contained in chapter 9 could not be implemented at present. They involve considerable financial expenditure and there is no question of tackling them at once. There were four questions on which I said we would consult local education authorities and produce action—the curriculum of grammar schools, technical high-schools, the school certificate, and inspection of private schools. Those four points have been mentioned by several hon. Members.
With regard to the curriculum of grammar schools, the Spens Report contained a great many detailed suggestions for modifying the curriculum and in particular for bringing the rural schools into closer relationship with their environment. We have issued to-day and I suppose it will be in the Press to-morrow, a circular to local education authorities putting the question: What are we trying to do with the grammar schools of the country and what is their object? We have already greatly modified the school certificate and made it more elastic, and we now propose that in addition to a more elastic curriculum up to 16 there shall be a much greater relation than hitherto between the work in later years and the ordinary vocations of life. In the past the whole secondary school curriculum has been too much attached to the Universities and matriculation. It is now thought that we can work out for the years between 16 and 17½ a series of courses for boys and girls which may have some real connection with their future callings, in the case of girls, for example, with nursing, and in the case of boys with the countryside. We could give sons of farmers who are going back to the farm some elementary understanding of rural chemistry, biology and so forth.
There is no question that we would discourage senior schools from having external examinations. Four-fifths of the children of the country pass through


senior schools and in spite of what the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said—I know he was referring to London—if he had seen the schools which I have been opening every week for the last few years none of his fears would remain. In many cases they have films, to which the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) referred, and the grant is 50 per cent. for projectors and 20 per cent. for films. I can agree with what my hon. Friend said. I have seen these films in action. There is great value in films especially in the case of biological and scientific subjects; other films give a wide sweep of foreign countries which children cannot visit. They are complementary to the classwork.

Sir E. Graham-Little: Will the Minister say whether it is possible to extend the subsidies to the hiring of films?

Mr. Lindsay: What happens is that there is a grant of 50 per cent. for projectors and 20 per cent. for films. I do not think we are likely to pay more. It is a question of first things first. Until every child gets a good meal inside it every day no one would pretend that films are vital, though they are important.
With regard to technical high schools, I am tempted to go back to my original speech, which was rather carefully prepared.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. A. Herbert: Instead of listening to the very interesting speech the Minister is making I think it would be of benefit to the House if it adjourned and the Minister were permitted to continue his speech in more favourable conditions to-morrow. I, therefore, beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. Speaker: That Motion cannot be moved in the middle of a speech.

Mr. Lindsay: The hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) said that he wanted to make a marriage between the secondary schools and the apprenticeship system. I agree with the right hon. Member for Keighley that we would be inclined to go slow with technical high-schools. The junior technical schools in this country serve a distinct purpose. Every boy is almost definitely going into a job and these schools are

situated only in places where there is a likelihood of jobs being found. As to the larger question of apprenticeship, I think we talk too vaguely about apprenticeship in this country. It is no use telling employers that they must release people in the day-time, because day-time releases in this country are confined to a few industries such as engineering, building, and printing. No doubt a few more firms could grant day-time releases with profit to their own people. Firms like Boots, of Nottingham, are setting up in their establishments day continuation schools, and it pays them every time, because they choose very carefully the subjects which are taught. For instance, for girls, there are hygiene and physical training, English and possibly shorthand; for boys, a series of subjects which do not aim at making them better workers in their specific jobs but which do make them better all-round people. What my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington said is true. There is remarkable agility and flexibility among the workers of this country, not because of the apprenticeship system but because they have taken the trouble—140,000 more this year than last year—to go to evening classes, at their own expense.
We have colleges such as those which I have visited in Essex and Middlesex to serve the new industries which have settled like locusts on what was once the green countryside around London. But in the North of England we see in back streets old shabby technical colleges which because they are technical and not academic have been relegated to an unfair status and position. I wish I knew the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington. I do not believe I do and I do not think anyone else does. It is not just a case of apprenticeship and providing a lot of colleges.

Mr. Cove: Why not have a good inquiry?

Mr. Lindsay: Inquiries have to be conducted very carefully to-day or they are a waste of time.

Sir P. Harris: And an excuse for delay.

Mr. Lindsay: If you suddenly get a spurt in the engineering industry it is natural that the schools do not provide what is needed. We are still trying to


catch up with the lack of technical education in this country. It is remarkable to me that there are so many skilled men on the Clyde and Tyne. I would not have advised any boy to go into the shipbuilding industry ten years ago. I might have done so five years ago, as quite clearly there was to be a big ship-building programme. But there is a lack of relation between schools and industries and, as the Spens Report says, the secondary school system no longer corresponds with the structure of modern society and the economic facts of the time. One day I announced from this bench that 25 per cent. of those at Oxford and Cambridge came from elementary schools, and a very distinguished colleague of mine said "That is a very interesting remark. How things have changed since I was at Oxford." But an hon. Member from the opposite benches murmured "Where in the world do the other 75 per cent. come from?" The answer is that they come from a series of excellent but quite clearly exclusive schools in the country, and it is idle to say that we have yet got what is most vital in any democracy—complete equality of opportunity—until we can ensure the solving of that problem.

Sir Gifford Fox: Does not that 75 per cent. include scholars who come from the Rhodes scheme and from the Empire?

Mr. Lindsay: I am aware of that and I was not trying to score a point by excluding them. I have been into these figures carefully. What I was saying was that it still does not correspond to the structure of society and the economic needs of the day. I listened to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) and I noted what they said about schools in Wales and similar schools in England. Some schools which are on the black-list should not be there, because they are not as bad as they are supposed to be; other schools which should be on the black-list are not on it. It is a very fine line. In the last three weeks I have seen a little school in the country with an old building which I would not put on the black-list. The problem of the black-list schools is being dealt with, and in a few years time I hope it will be completely solved. It will be solved, I think, when local education authorities wake up to the fact that they

have to deal completely with this question of reorganisation, and I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for his efforts in waking up the local authorities in Wales.
I go further and say that the Board itself will have to take action on two points. The first is the grants question. The second is the unit of administration. I think the time has come for a revision of the grants system. I said so last year. In the interval we have had discussions with local education authorities, but we have not got any further, and my Noble Friend is seriously considering whether there will not have to be a commission dealing not only with that but with the right units of administration both in this country and in Wales.
There is in this country the most interesting experimental work going on in education that is to be found anywhere in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) is opposed to the rural senior schools, or rather, she says in a rather grudging way that they have their good points but that they are taking children from the country into the towns. I would point out that there is a very complete answer and it is roughly this: If the schools in the countryside had their own gardens and were dealing with domestic science the position might be different. Fifty per cent. have not got gardens at all. How can one expect children to go on being taught in such conditions? They are rather like those in the private school quoted by the hon. Member where 12 children of ages ranging from five years to 14 were being taught by one person? I saw a school in Pershore with a large fruit orchard and a wonderful garden. That is practically a secondary school.
I have been studying with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture for the last six months the problem how we can give a rural bias to the education in rural senior schools, before young men go on the land or to agricultural colleges. There are great possibilities and the problem needs radical treatment. If you really want to get agriculture on its feet and want to get the personnel and if you are going to make the best use of the new subsidies that are given by the Government, then you have to take the whole problem of agricultural education much more seriously than in the past.
The root question that arose between my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) seems to be this, that in the old days cooking and a great many other things were learned as home lore from the mother. In these days, when families are small, we do not get this; instead we have to proceed with this elaborate machinery of laboratories and kitchens and specially trained domestic science teachers, and so the cost of education must necessarily go up. Therefore we arc faced with the problem in the countryside first of having much more practical training, much more related to the life of the countryside, and secondly, making that school a centre, as it is in Cambridgeshire, where you have little village colleges with amenities for people right up to adolescence and up to the age of the Militia, so that you have in the country some of the amenities that people have got in the towns.
The question of nutrition has been raised. I would like to quote one sentence from a report by the Advisory Council on Nutrition, signed by such people as Sir John Orr, Professor Mellanby, Mrs. Eleanor Barton and others:
 We have had under review the various methods which have been tried or are in process of trial or have been suggested for the assessment of the nutritional state. We are unable to recommend any known method as reliable. So far as our present knowledge goes it would seem that the clinical method given in detail in Administrative Memorandum No. 124 of the Board of Education is the most promising, but the trial of this method has not been sufficiently prolonged to establish its reliability.
I admit that our present method is not infallible but the opinion of the experts I have quoted is an impressive one and there can be no doubt as to the great progress which is being made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley quoted from the article by Sir Ronald Davison in yesterday's "Times." I should like, however, to quote another sentence which occurs just after the point at which he left off.
 Meanwhile these Militia statistics are definitely encouraging. They do prove that something satisfactory has been happening to our child and adolescent population since the War and still more since the beginning of the century.
I should like to pay a tribute to those who for 30 years have helped with the

school medical service and have helped to produce these very satisfactory results. Our aim is to eliminate malnutrition in the schools. We do not rely on this clinical assessment. I could, if it were not so late, show you what we have done in the way of surveying the position in nearly half of the education authorities in this country. Wherever I go I point out that there are, according to our figures, shall be say 2,000 children who, we know, are in a state of sub-normal nutrition and who ought to be getting supplementary nourishment. We also advocate six-monthly nutrition surveys so that all children may be examined for signs of malnutrition. If there is the slightest symptom, nurses, doctors or teachers are immediately encouraged to advocate provision of free milk or free meals.
I will not weary the House with statistics, but I must take exception to the pamphlet issued by the Labour party which talks of a reactionary period in the last seven years. It states that in the last seven years education has been the victim of a policy of reaction. That is not true. The figures are all against that assertion. It is untrue as regards broadening the educational ladder. There are more poor boys going to the secondary schools and working their way up to the universities. It is untrue of the numbers holding State scholarships, for these have increased by nearly 50 per cent. It is untrue of the total expenditure, for this is £7,000,000 more for half a million fewer children. It is untrue of the provision of milk and meals. It is untrue of the expenditure on technical education and on special services. I put that on record: I do not want to introduce any controversial element into this Debate, especially at this late hour, but what is stated in this pamphlet in this connection is not true.
I trust I have dealt with most of the questions which have been raised in the Debate. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) has gone, otherwise I would have devoted some little time to the question of adult education. We have had a committee making an exhaustive inquiry into the subject of adult education and a report has been made, the conclusions of which will, I hope, help to simplify the whole procedure and working of that very important part of our educational system. We have just come to the end of 21 years of adult suffrage, and


I think the best test of adult education is in this House, though perhaps we do not sufficiently recognise it, because in the world of to-day it is an institution which is not particularly popular. The preservation of free speech and the keenness of the discussions which take place in this House are, perhaps, the best example of good adult education. One of the reasons that this House remains is that we have an education system which does not try to "vet" textbooks in Whitehall, which does not tell 315 education authorities precisely what they are to do, but which allows a faithful body of inspectors, of whom very little is known and said, to go about the country, keeping a watchful eye to the activities of local authorities all over the country. It is because we are trying to build a democracy on that basis that this £52,000,000 which is being spent by the Exchequer is money well spent. I only wish that on some occasion we might have a full House and ask ourselves: Are we getting value for the money; are we building the sort of system in this country which we really want? If we could do that we would create in this House and in the country a new interest in education.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL MINE REFUSE) BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Coal mine refuse liable to spontaneous combustion to be deemed a nuisance.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 8, leave out "which is liable to spontaneous combustion," and insert:

"in respect of which there is reasonable cause to believe that spontaneous combustion is likely to occur."

1.8 a.m.

Mr. Lawson: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I am sorry this has to be done at such a late hour. This Bill passed its Second Reading in this House without a Division, and when it went to another place it was felt that certain Amendments were necessary. In regard to this Amendment in particular, the outstanding thing that was in question was the liability to spontaneous combustion of these heaps which take fire and send out smoke and stench. The words inserted in the Bill in another place are a slight variation. May I take the other Amendment which deals with the question of prosecution? The Amendment is to the effect that no prosecution shall take place unless with the consent of the Minister of Health. Although I thought, and the House thought that this Bill was a small and simple Measure, giving almost a minimum of power to deal with this very grave menace to colliery areas, at this late hour I am prepared to accept these Amendments as a compromise in order to have a Bill which possibly will deal with a very serious matter in colliery areas, and one which has disturbed many people.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SOLICITORS (DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into The Committee on the Bill.—[Major Milner.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday evening; Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eleven Minutes after One o'Clock.